Slashdot Mirror


Time-in-Space Record Broken

NoFrance writes "Russian cosmonaut, Sergei Krikalev has taken the record for most time spent in space away from fellow Russian Sergei Avdeyev. At 748 days in space, Krikalev has an impressive list of accomplishments to his name, including : back-to-back 6 month tours on mir, he flew on the first joint US-Russian space shuttle mission, and a member of the first crew to live on ISS. He is currently commander of the ISS in a six-month stint that began on 14 April. Most impressive is his ability to deal with the physical hardships in space. In space most people lose around 1.5% of their bone mass per month, even with a disciplined exercise regime. And growing the bone mass lost from a 6 month stint back, can take a long time."

325 comments

  1. 748 days? by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    748 days? Wow. Think about that - it's more than two years. Quite an accomplishment indeed.

    Out of curiosity, what's the record amount of time spent in space by a US-American astronaut?

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    1. Re:748 days? by AccUser · · Score: 4, Funny

      what's the record amount of time spent in space by a US-American?

      What? Including abductees?

      --

      Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.

    2. Re:748 days? by cblanc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I wonder how they prepare themselves psychologically for such a journey. As for the record amount of time spent in space by an American astronaut is Shannon Lucid with 188 days

    3. Re:748 days? by oringo · · Score: 5, Funny

      From TFA: Most impressive is his ability to deal with the physical hardships in space.

      Nah...All you need is a playboy subscription.

    4. Re:748 days? by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Think about that - it's more than two years

      And he's gained 2 milliseconds compared to people on the ground! :) Assuming I'm doing the math right here...

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    5. Re:748 days? by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Funny

      If there is proof (or at least conclusive evidence) that they were indeed abducted, sure. :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    6. Re:748 days? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      > From TFA: Most impressive is his ability to deal with the physical hardships in space.
      >
      > Nah...All you need is a playboy subscription.

      ...because (at least in male test subjects) physical hardship is inversely proportional to bone mass.

    7. Re:748 days? by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 1
      That brings up an interesting question.

      Is sperm processed the same as urine? And how pleasurable is the urine funnel?

      just something that your post brought in my sick little perverted head.

      --
      Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
    8. Re:748 days? by eln · · Score: 3, Funny

      Elvis has been in space for almost 30 years!

    9. Re:748 days? by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks, but this is the record for the most time spent in space cumulatively - if I understand correctly, Lucid's record 188 days were a single stay. :)

      Oh, and out of curiosity (sorry for going off-topic here), how'd you manage to post a score 0 comment without either being AC or getting modded down? o.o

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    10. Re:748 days? by daniil · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to Space Today, the U.S. space endurance record holder is former ISS commander Michael Foale, with a total of 375 days spent in space (note that it's the record for cumulative time spent in space. The longest time spent in space on a single mission is 438 days).

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    11. Re:748 days? by skarphace · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Don't you mean boner mass?

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    12. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and out of curiosity (sorry for going off-topic here), how'd you manage to post a score 0 comment without either being AC or getting modded down? o.o

      bad karma. your comments start at 2 because you have good karma.

    13. Re:748 days? by johno.ie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Micheal Foale a British born astronaut with dual US/UK citizenship has spent 374 days, 11 hours, 19 minutes in space. I believe this is the extra-Russian record.

      --
      872835240
    14. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the perfect slashdot story. Tomorrow they'll be able to dupe it and it'll still be true. And the day after another dupe. And the day after. And so on. All they will have to do is increment the counter... 748... 749... 750... 751...

      I'll bet the editors are creaming their pants.

    15. Re:748 days? by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      record for most time spent in space away from fellow Russian Sergei Avdeyev. At 748 days in space
      kind of brings tears to your eyes. My eyes would be tearing too, if I had to spend that much time in close proximity to someone whop hasn't had a bath or shower in how fucking long?

      There are some records that are NOT meant to be advertised far and wide.

      After 2 years with no bath, his hair must look like Yoda's (or Ted Koppel's). Eww. Or maybe all the cosmic rays caused it to fall ou[tt].

    16. Re:748 days? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      hmm i thought it was

      0: ac or bad karma
      1: good karma
      1+1 karma bonus: excellent karma

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    17. Re:748 days? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I couldn't do it just because of the lack of sex! Good god. And with camera's, bio equipment and all - masturbating has got to be kind of awkward : People at mission control "Hmm, Comrade, what are you doing? Oh...."

      When he comes back he is going to be SO weak (physically) as he tries to rebuild his muscloskeletal system. Imagine being in a coma for two years and the work you have to do- this is almost as bad (though worse in some ways).

      Kudo's for him for being able to stay up there away from family, friends, significant others. Personally, I would be bringing my g/f up with me.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    18. Re:748 days? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Ok, presumably one mission means you go to space and stay there until the end. If the longest time (up until this point) was 438 days...how can the longest cumulative time spent in space be 375 days? Cumaltive implies that this guy went up into space a bunch of times. The cumulative would still have to be at LEAST 438 days.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    19. Re:748 days? by Egorn · · Score: 1

      Do you get conjugal visits in space?

      --

      Movie News - "Entertainment news, bitch!"
    20. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >how'd you manage to post a score 0 comment without either being AC or getting modded down?

      overrated mod

    21. Re:748 days? by daniil · · Score: 3, Informative

      See, it's very simple. The man who spent 438 days in space on a single mission is Russian, while the man who has spent 375 days in the space altogether is an American. The American single mission record is 193 days.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    22. Re:748 days? by Schemat1c · · Score: 3, Funny

      From TFA: Most impressive is his ability to deal with the physical hardships in space.

      Nah...All you need is a playboy subscription.


      Great, now I have this image of little white globules floating all around the inside of the space station. I hope they have safety goggles up there.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    23. Re:748 days? by Mars2020 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You're wrong! The US record belongs to Cpt. Janeway of starship Voyager. And Cpt. Kirk has the record for most teleportation with both testicles accounted for.

    24. Re:748 days? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      So, to summarise: American astronauts are wussies.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    25. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Get. A. Fucking. Life.

      Please.

    26. Re:748 days? by GoldAnt · · Score: 0

      nah, they're just too lazy to want to get back as much bone mass as the russians so they can't stay out as long =D

    27. Re:748 days? by funkn · · Score: 1
      Most impressive is his ability to deal with the physical hardships in space. In space most people lose around 1.5% of their bone mass per month, even with a disciplined exercise regime .

      ...Because we all need to fear those unruly and law-ignoring exercise cartels, especially the one led by this man:

      http://images.google.com/images?q=richard+simmon s&hl=en

    28. Re:748 days? by ryanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think these folks mean "consecutive" but don't seem to be able to find the word.

    29. Re:748 days? by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 1

      Being a space cadet and actually qualifying to be in space are two different things. Actually Bush is now setting a personal best record of 3 years and 7 and a half months without choking on a dried baked good.

    30. Re:748 days? by 2names · · Score: 1

      Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to introduce to you the Father of the Ouster race, Sergei Krikalev.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    31. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see how our TV reporters react to THAT footage!

      I for one welcome our new...ewwwww!

    32. Re:748 days? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful
      748 days? Wow. Think about that - it's more than two years. Quite an accomplishment indeed.
      [yawn] I know a dozen or more submariners in the US alone that have spent three or more years submerged and isolated. Heck, I accumulated a hair over a year (372 days) in a span of four years.

      From TFA

      There are also individual differences in the ability to handle the psychological hardships of long-term spaceflight, says Musson. Many space-farers go through a syndrome similar to depression after the novelty and excitement of the first few weeks in space wears off. It is marked by fatigue, lack of motivation, irritability, and problems sleeping.
      As I've been saying for years - recruit submariners, not pilots. They're already partially screened for resistance to this syndrome. They are already used to living in confined spaces, isolation, etc.. etc..
    33. Re:748 days? by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      Nah...All you need is a playboy subscription.

      I always wondered about mail for astronauts. Resupply ships couldn't possibly bring all the mail, but I suppose they could get a 'priority' 'message' once in a while. At about $5,000 per pound on the space shuttle that would be one expensive subscription.

      TW

    34. Re:748 days? by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      I couldn't do it just because of the lack of sex! Good god.

      One of my biggest sexual fantasies is to have sex on the space shuttle.

      ...with a space prostitute.

    35. Re:748 days? by Aeiri · · Score: 5, Funny

      As I've been saying for years - recruit submariners, not pilots. They're already partially screened for resistance to this syndrome. They are already used to living in confined spaces, isolation, etc.. etc..

      Or they can hire nerds, who already know a bunch about space anyway, and also fit that criteria.

      You may think I'm joking, but I haven't actually left this room all summer, except once or twice. I've been able to handle 3 months without any problems, I'm sure I can handle a year or two even.

      This is, of course, given I have an internet connection.

    36. Re:748 days? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Well considering the testing everyone boarding a space shuttle must currently do (bloodwork, cancer test, etc) you know you won't have to worry about STDs. I don't think they let you up there with a canker sore.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    37. Re:748 days? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      .... how'd you manage to post a score 0 comment without either being AC or getting modded down?

      (s)he had very few posts. The first (and only) mod recieved was -1 overrated. This resulted in a net negative karma which fetched a karma penalty rather than bonus. Haven gotten 2 'informative' mods for the above post, karma is now back positive, and so future posts wil now start at 0 (barring more negative moderation)

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    38. Re:748 days? by natx808 · · Score: 1

      on a more subdued note,

      it's safe to assume then, that this russion cosmonaut has easily broken the distance record for farthest ejaculation

    39. Re:748 days? by duncan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well I can't offer you proof or conclusive evidence, but I can offer you a California jury saying it is so.

    40. Re:748 days? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      As I've been saying for years - recruit submariners, not pilots. They're already partially screened for resistance to this syndrome. They are already used to living in confined spaces, isolation, etc.. etc..

      Or they can hire nerds, who already know a bunch about space anyway, and also fit that criteria.

      Nerds don't live in isolation or in cramped spaces for any significant time.
      You may think I'm joking, but I haven't actually left this room all summer, except once or twice.
      You have acess to TV, radio, the 'net, pizza delivery, etc... etc... You don't have any experience in living in confined spaces or isolated from the bulk of humanity, or training that provides the hair trigger reflexes that will be needed if there is an emergency...
      I've been able to handle 3 months without any problems, I'm sure I can handle a year or two even.
      I sincerly doubt it. Living in your bedroom and living [mumble] feet under the ocean are more different than you think.
    41. Re:748 days? by syousef · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah and think about it, that's 2 years without sex...that must be a record too....Oh no wait this is /.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    42. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order for your question to be relevant, you would need to aske if SEMEN is processed the same as urine. Sperm cells are only one component of the fluid that would need to be processed by the waste system in the scenario you are proposing.

      Please repeat 7th grade biology class.

    43. Re:748 days? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Really? Got a link? o.o

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    44. Re:748 days? by greylingrover · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Please! Have you no sense of humor?

      What, making a joke about Elvis get's you a ++ and Bush = --?

      Oh, I get it, everyone shit on the new guy. ;)

      --
      --- Shoo-be-doo-be-do-wop-say-what-yeah!
    45. Re:748 days? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1, Funny

      what exactly qualifies as extra-russian? do you have to murder a few thousand chechnyans and piss vodka or something?

    46. Re:748 days? by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

      It is a record. 2 years without sex would imply sex occured only 2 years ago. For most people on slashdot, this is in fact a record.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    47. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there were episodes where they had to go on the surface of a planet they encountered, which qualifies as "not time-in-space".

    48. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He just went home.

    49. Re:748 days? by slazar · · Score: 1

      lol no, he meant not russian. like extraterrestrials are "not terrestrial". terrestrial meaning "of terra" or earth...

    50. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes sir, Captain Serious.

    51. Re:748 days? by cyberphotographer · · Score: 1
      And he's gained 2 milliseconds
      Can we see your working? The time displacement depends on the acceleration path, not just the time up there. We probably need to know the height/orbital velocity and duration of each trip to work out by how much he is younger than his imaginary earthbound twin. I think more short trips keep you young better than a few long ones.
    52. Re:748 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the future! How did that old filk go again...

      "Home, home on LaGrange,
      Where the space debris always collects,
      We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
      Solar power and zero-gee sex."

    53. Re:748 days? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Better than that, you need female astronauts!! Maybe lack of female pheromones in the space cabin air is what's causing their bone loss.

  2. Forgive me... by hamfactorial · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Soviet space, bone loses you!

    --
    Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future? Holy shit!
    1. Re:Forgive me... by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Remember in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", if an earthling spent a few months on Luna then the could never return. (Unless they did some special kind of centrifuged exercising.) Apparently Heinlein wasn't quite right.

    2. Re:Forgive me... by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      Oh My God!
      They're Not Even Human!

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    3. Re:Forgive me... by Dorsai42 · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but his SF is of the highest order.

      --
      If you forget about the future, the future will forget about you.
    4. Re:Forgive me... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Mike will probably be around to correct us both in a little bit, but as I recall, in reality, there are several health hazards that come about from staying in such a low gravitational field for so long -- bone loss is prime among them. They're the reasons Astronauts have to do such strenuous exercises in space.

      Heinlein just overestimated exactly how bad those effects would be, but I have no doubt he was probably right for what would happen for someone raised in 1/6th Gee trying to get around in a 1 G field, i.e. Lunie on Terra.

      It would not be pleasant, if my experience having a seizure (and thus loss of function of the limbs) is anything similar.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    5. Re:Forgive me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 700 days in space with no babes, I bet his bone got quite a workout! No wonder it lost mass. I bet the American astronaut's main problem is a sore ass.

    6. Re:Forgive me... by pigger · · Score: 0

      This problem is only experienced by white people, as evidenced by the movie "Gayniggers from Outer Space".

  3. How many by anandpur · · Score: 4, Funny

    Frequent Flyer miles he accumulated?

    1. Re:How many by fizzup · · Score: 1

      He's got soooooo many, they're going to let him stay in space until October. For free!

    2. Re:How many by grozzie2 · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's irrelavent. His miles are in the wrong mileage program, a combination of nasa and the russian space agency. The russian agency has no space available for cashing in miles over the next few years, all flights are booked full. Nasa has grounded it's fleet yet again.

      When choosing your mileage program, it's very important to check that it's one where you can actually cash the miles in for travel, there's a bunch of them that have so many rules/restrictions that it's not worth the hassle. This fella obviously made the wrong choice for collecting miles. Then again, it's not like he had a variety of carriers to chose from when booking flights to MIR and ISS...

    3. Re:How many by Dorsai42 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he can trade miles with Tom Hanks.

      --
      If you forget about the future, the future will forget about you.
    4. Re:How many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them.

    5. Re:How many by mlrtime · · Score: 0, Redundant


      He has a few million, unfortuantly they will all expire before he gets back.

    6. Re:How many by tmasssey · · Score: 1
      I guess he should have called Captial One. What's in your wallet? :)

    7. Re:How many by SlayerofGods · · Score: 0

      You made we wonder.
      He's been in space for 748 days, that's 64627200.
      The ISS orbits at 7.7km/s
      Meaning this guy has traveled ~497,629,440
      That's more then the distance to mars. (not that it means anything... just food for thought)
      Impressive.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    8. Re:How many by igny · · Score: 1

      But you see, he was not flying, he was falling and missing the ground.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  4. How long? by ucahg · · Score: 1

    And growing the bone mass lost from a 6 month stint back, can take a long time.

    I hate comments like that. Immediately I want to know how long, but all I know is that it's the ever-subjective "a long time". Gee, thanks.

    (wow that sounds really negative.. it's not actually *thaat* important to me... oh well)

    1. Re:How long? by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 4, Funny

      And growing the bone mass lost from a 6 month stint back, can take a long time.

      I hate comments like that. Immediately I want to know how long, but all I know is that it's the ever-subjective "a long time". Gee, thanks.


      From TFA

      "And it takes a good long time to get it back," says Buckey, adding that it can take years to recover the bone mass lost from a six-month stay in orbit. Researchers are also not sure whether the quality of the new bone matches that of the bone mass lost, he told New Scientist.

      Argh! The..strain...of..finding..this..infor..mation.... over..whelming......
      *gasp*

    2. Re:How long? by yossarian+dent · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd just settle for commas, not being put where they don't belong.

      --
      sig not ready: (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.
    3. Re:How long? by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Immediately I want to know how long, but all I know is that it's the ever-subjective "a long time".

      I could look up how long it takes for you, but it'll take a while.

    4. Re:How long? by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      Wow! Thanks for pulling that info, "years" is so much more exact than "a long time"! I was afraid it might take "millenia" or "eons"

      well there Bubba, maybe if you stopped to think about it for a second you would realize that the data set they have had to collect information is pretty doggone small. How many healthy males lose 1.5% of bone mass and they grow it back on a regular basis?

      Maybe it also would cross your mind that "years" is a pretty good indicator. It could have been "decades", "scores", or even "dozens". It could have been 2 months for all you know. Now you have a much better idea of the time it takes. Did you really expect them to say, "it will take 4.6 months per every 24 hours in space." Or something like that? Maybe you would have liked a link to a bone mass calculator that would calculate how long it would take for YOU to get it back.

  5. Yeah, well... by daniil · · Score: 4, Funny
    What he doesn't know is, in the meantime, I ate his children.

    (And Sergei, man, I'm so sorry you had to hear about it like this...)

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    1. Re:Yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I smelled something weird cooking up while I was bangning his wife.

    2. Re:Yeah, well... by Nytewynd · · Score: 1

      Mike Tyson, is that you?

      --
      /. ++
  6. *whew* by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought there was a problem with the space-time continuum.

    1. Re:*whew* by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      I thought there was a problem with the space-time continuum.

      Nope, it's a problem with living in Russia. You think he's crazy? He's nice and safe up there, much better than being on the ground with all those thugs running around the country.

      ISS Sweet ISS

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:*whew* by yurivish · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, eddy is in the time-space continuum...

    3. Re:*whew* by ugmoe · · Score: 1

      When does he grow the stretchy, flaming, orange invisible breasts?

    4. Re:*whew* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my initial reaction as well..

      Time and Space BROKEN?!!?!?!? omg wtf

  7. 10m+ by rd4tech · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many space-farers go through a syndrome similar to depression after the novelty and excitement of the first few weeks in space wears off. It is marked by fatigue, lack of motivation, irritability, and problems sleeping.

    They better make those soon-to-be-here flight to moon & mars entertaining, otherwise, they might get sued by guys who are able to pay 10+ milion for a vacation :)

    1. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 0

      Methinks that "Space Depression" may have one or two things to do with the exceedingly cramped spaces. I mean, road trips are fun and all, but I'd go crazy too if I had to stay in the car for two years!

      Any sort of mission to Mars would HAVE to be a bit more spacious than today's craft. Which means we need bigger boosters to get it there. Which then suggests the use of something nuclear such as NTR, Orion, or MPDT.

    2. Re:10m+ by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      considering the protest from the left over cassini's tiny neclear fuel. unlikey.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    3. Re:10m+ by Dausha · · Score: 1

      The call that culture shock--that is, the syndrome spacemen experience.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    4. Re:10m+ by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Any sort of mission to Mars would HAVE to be a bit more spacious than today's craft. Which means we need bigger boosters to get it there.

      I would just like to point out that more empty space on a craft is just that; empty. Sure you gotta build a bigger hull and you gotta carry up a few extra liters of air. But there's a nice volume to mass ratio going on here; double the mass to quadruple the volume, that sort of thing... and any volume you add this way doesn't have to have any equipment in it!

      But I agree. Orion is the answer.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    5. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2

      Unfortunate for the left-wing nut jobs, they're just going to have to deal with it. Cassini flew, as will Prometheus. Not to mention the Viking, Pioneer, and Mars Explorer probes. (The Mars explorer bots had Radioisotope heaters on board.)

      In space you live and die by the amount of power available to you. Solar does a reasonable job for very small craft all the way out to Jupiter. For larger craft or longer distances, you NEED to get power from somewhere. Nuclear fission can provide that power.

    6. Re:10m+ by grozzie2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about we exclude you from the candidate list of folks to go, and restrict it to people that _can_ deal with the claustriphobic conditions. Makes much more sense to choose crew capable of operating within the mission parameters, rather than change the mission parameters to fit a crew.

    7. Re:10m+ by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "Heh...heh...heh...they think I'm crazy. But I know better. It is not I who am crazy. It is not I who am mad! Didn'tcha hear 'em? Didn'tcha see the CROWDS? Oh my beloved ice cream bar... "

      According to Ren & Stimpy, it is zero-G that causes Space Madness.

      Don't push the button.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is risk. Just because you've screened the candidates to find people who are least likely to be bothered by the small spaces, doesn't mean that they won't crack. Placing a crew under those conditions for three years or so (especially when the crew will get some tastes of freedom on Mars) is one heck of a gamble to take.

      Plus, it's not a very useful long term solution. If we're going to have regular missions to Mars, we can't reasonably make sure that every person to go can handle the stress.

      There are also other issues that would require the larger engines. For example, a very long trip to Mars would exasperate the radiation damage done to the crew during the trip. Shortening that trip would help guarantee the health of the crew and the success of the mission.

      Besides, I'm not just putting out wild ideas here. The words "Nuclear Thermal Rocket" have been bandied about quite a bit in relation to the Mars spiral of the CEV program. Even the Moon transport spiral is seriously considering the use of these engines. We have the technology, so why not use it?

    9. Re:10m+ by p3d0 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not really. The Mars Direct plan calls for a maximum of 130 contiguous days in space (on the return trip) with three other people, using chemical rockets, in a relatively large habitation module which (if I recall) is not much smaller than my apartment. If I reorganized my apartment specifically for the purpose, I'm sure four of us could spend 5 months in there without going batty.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    10. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative
      The Mars Direct plan calls for a maximum of 130 contiguous days in space (on the return trip) with three other people, using chemical rockets

      Yes, I see:
      Use of a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) third stage on the Ares would increase trans-Mars payload by 50%. The NTR stage would have a specific impulse of 900 s, a power of 900 MWth, and a thrust of 45,000 lb. Use of a NIMF (Nuclear rocket using Indigenous Martian Fuel) stage on the lander would provide the Habitation Module with the capability of leaping from one location on the Martian surface to another, using compressed Martian carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as propellant. This would allow 18 sites on the surface to be visited within the 550 days of surface time, as opposed to just one for the baseline expedition.
      ;-)
    11. Re:10m+ by RevMike · · Score: 1
      The problem is risk. Just because you've screened the candidates to find people who are least likely to be bothered by the small spaces, doesn't mean that they won't crack. Placing a crew under those conditions for three years or so (especially when the crew will get some tastes of freedom on Mars) is one heck of a gamble to take.

      I'm more worried that they'll use some paint which has toxic gases that will cause the occupants to go paranoid, like on that nuclear missile submarine a few years ago.

    12. Re:10m+ by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Orion (actually, Medusa - Orion is dated and inefficient) is hardly the only high ISP/high thrust nuclear propulsion method available. In addition to nuclear thermal (not as high ISP, but no EMP and little to no radioactive waste, so can theoretically be used in Earth orbit), there are the antimatter catalyzed microfission and microfusion engines, and fun things like nuclear saltwater engines (dirty, but no EMP - you have subcritical fissile salts in water kept in neutron-absorbing capillaries; the water is injected into the engine, where it goes critical)

      There are lots of neat currently-achievable nuclear low-thrust methods as well.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    13. Re:10m+ by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Or, you just fly the proposed space shuttle in pieces into orbit (four to six trips) and assemble it in space. Once in space, size will not make that much of a difference after you get the spaceship in motion...though stopping it will take more force (to counter the mass). Maybe nuclear fuel would be a good way to do it? Lasts a long time, and is powerful. Plus, if insulated correctly, poses little radiation risk to the human travellers.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    14. Re:10m+ by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      And let's not forget about NERVA, which unlike orion, actually tested a full sized engine. We need to figure out how to get rid of the fallout though because the biggest obstacle to space travel isn't Isp needed to get from earth orbit to somewhere, the biggest obstacle is the Isp+thrust combo needed to get to earth orbit to begin with. (the former is only a problem because of the mass savings it can provide to the latter)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:10m+ by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Unfortunate for the left-wing nut jobs, they're just going to have to deal with it.

      Unfortunately, some of those "left-wing nut jobs" have quite valid points. Reasonable people try to follow logic and common sense wherever they might lead, inacurate political labels intended to simplify things for small minds not withstanding. So even though I find myself in agreement with many of those calling themselves "liberal" or "progressive", I also find many of the so called "conservative" notions valid and I do not dismiss them out of hand merely based on their source.

      Coming back to your favourite claim, something we already discussed, the problem is not some hysterical nuclear-fuel fobia on the part of some nebulous "vast left-wing conspiracy" but some rather common sense technical problems with fission based technologies and their nuclear fuel. So while safely encased thermal nuclear batteries launched in vehicles which are safely directed over unpopulated areas are quite acceptable to me, any more powerful but also less controllable and subsequently far more dangerous ideas such as nuclear engines used for liftoff are basically out of the question until someone comes up with a way of guaranteeing their integrity in the critical period of their operation.

      As to "dealing with it" it is the technocrats which will have to deal with the fact that technology by itself is not the goal of society but merely a tool meant for the betterment of life and therefore subservient to the needs of society, no matter how "cool" some ideas are.

    16. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      We need to figure out how to get rid of the fallout though

      Supposedly, they have. Pratt and Whitney only need a buyer before they start constructing the engines. The engine is a tri-mode jobbie that can do high Isp thrust in space, and low (for NTR) Isp afterburning for high thrust, atmospheric work. Once in space, the engine can idle to produce ship's power.

      Nice engine, eh? I want one. ;-)

    17. Re:10m+ by Rei · · Score: 1

      NERVA is nuclear thermal, which I already mentioned :) It's lower ISP, but still well better than chemical rockets.

      MPDT propulsion off the planet would be possible if we had an uber-low mass power source... now that would be nifty and very sci-fi like (lifting off the surface with engines that have a blue glow, not flames and steam, coming out of them) :) It'd be really hard to get that kind of power density... perhaps antimatter-catalyzed microfission or microfusion of a fuel that releases mostly protons and electrons, which you can decelerate for direct power conversion, might do it.

      If we could get a nuclear thermal engine demonstrated in-space for about a decade without any problems and without any fuel erosion, public resistance to surface launches will wane. I doubt that'll happen, though - current-gen nuclear power just isn't reliable enough.

      A more near-term possibility would be to use air-breathing stages or engines. A regular jet engine will only take you out of most of the atmosphere and impart minimal momentum, of course; to get that high delta-V orbital energy, a scramjet could get you 1/2 to 2/3 of the way.

      I like to envision a double-waverider scramjet (a half combustion chamber on each side, with the air currents forming the other half of each combustion chamber), or possibly a craft with multiple waveriders (say, two on each side of the "fuselage"), accelerating to scramjet speeds with droppable solid rocket boosters or high performance jet engines, and either launching an orbital stage or heading to orbit itself as an SSTO. Since, as a scramjet, you'd need a SiC-coated RCC skin anyways, you have a ready-made reentry craft.

      It'd be an expensive craft (with all the RCC), but reusable, durable, and the payload ratio should be outstanding. Unfortunately, there's not much money for scramjet research right now, even with the X-43 (and other) recent successes, and the promising simulation numbers. The CEV has top priority, and risky 'cost reducer' projects have to go to the backburner.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    18. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, some of those "left-wing nut jobs" have quite valid points.

      "The RTG will destroy the world."
      "We're all going to die!"
      "Even a tiny amount of that Plutonium could kill MILLIONS!"
      "Plutonium is the most toxic substance in existance!" (Hi Nader!)

      These aren't valid points. These are raving lunatics who didn't take the time to understand what they're protesting. It's a bit like having PETA knocking on your door for selling hamburgers.

      So while safely encased thermal nuclear batteries launched in vehicles which are safely directed over unpopulated areas are quite acceptable to me, any more powerful but also less controllable and subsequently far more dangerous ideas such as nuclear engines used for liftoff are basically out of the question until someone comes up with a way of guaranteeing their integrity in the critical period of their operation.

      Just to be clear, I was referring to the LEO -> Mars or Luna -> Mars boost. i.e. CEV Mars Spiral. There are very few contamination issues in these boosts, as trajectories can be calculated to ensure that the exhaust never reaches Earth. :-)

    19. Re:10m+ by legirons · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The Mars Direct plan calls for a maximum of 130 contiguous days in space (on the return trip) with three other people, using chemical rockets, in a relatively large habitation module which (if I recall) is not much smaller than my apartment."

      I think we have a plan for the next episode of Big Brother...

    20. Re:10m+ by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      For example, a very long trip to Mars would exasperate the radiation...

      So, like, the radiation would just give up?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    21. Re:10m+ by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      "The RTG will destroy the world." "Even a tiny amount of that Plutonium could kill MILLIONS!" "Plutonium is the most toxic substance in existance!" (Hi Nader!)

      I am sure you can find some wackos who would go "All those ex-inhabitants if Chernobyl are wimps, I would raise children and grow tomatoes there!", "I eat plutonium for breakfast, it adds a zing to my toast!", "Look Ma, them gamma rays are harmless, and warm and tingly too!", "I would like to glow in the dark, it would be cool!" etc.

      "We're all going to die!"

      Quite true, unfortunately.

      Just to be clear, I was referring to the LEO -> Mars or Luna -> Mars boost. i.e. CEV Mars Spiral.

      I have no problem with that as long as the fuel can be delivered to orbit safely instead of ending up in my strawberries or tuna.

    22. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      A more near-term possibility would be to use air-breathing stages or engines. A regular jet engine will only take you out of most of the atmosphere and impart minimal momentum, of course; to get that high delta-V orbital energy, a scramjet could get you 1/2 to 2/3 of the way.

      I'm still not so keen on the scramjet engines. The engines themselves are fine, but the incredible stresses on the airframe are an engineer's nightmare. The airframe would have to be even more sturdy than the SR-71, which pulled some rather crazy tricks (such as leaking very expensive fuel to cool the skin) that just aren't feasible in a normal craft. If a scramjet was built like the SR-71, it would be too expensive to ever get off the ground!

      If we could get a nuclear thermal engine demonstrated in-space for about a decade without any problems and without any fuel erosion, public resistance to surface launches will wane. I doubt that'll happen, though - current-gen nuclear power just isn't reliable enough.

      I don't think that's as much of a problem as it seems. As I've stated before, Pratt & Whitney think they've got the problem licked. They're using Tungsten cladding instead of Graphite, which should actually provide better performance and less erosion. Get a few hundred hours on those engines (in space, of course) and we'll have a pretty good idea about whether atmosphere is feasible or not. It certainly can't be any worse than a plane that must withstand similar heat tolerances on the outside! ;-)

      MPDT propulsion off the planet would be possible if we had an uber-low mass power source... now that would be nifty and very sci-fi like (lifting off the surface with engines that have a blue glow, not flames and steam, coming out of them) :)

      Wouldn't that be great? I read a rather funny post the other day that went something like this:

      "What we need to do is invent that glowey blue shit. Everytime you watch a space movie, there's a ship with glowey blue bits. On the Prometheus (Stargate) they get really bright when they start working. On the Enterprise they flash brightly just as the ship is about to go really fast. In all cases, they get around because of the glowey blue stuff. If we invented the glowey blue stuff, we'd already have been everywhere!"

      Gave me a good chuckle. ;-)

    23. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I am sure you can find some wackos who would go "All those ex-inhabitants if Chernobyl are wimps, I would raise children and grow tomatoes there!", "I eat plutonium for breakfast, it adds a zing to my toast!", "Look Ma, them gamma rays are harmless, and warm and tingly too!", "I would like to glow in the dark, it would be cool!" etc.

      Then they'd be right-wing nut jobs. Not much better. ;-)

      I have no problem with that as long as the fuel can be delivered to orbit safely instead of ending up in my strawberries or tuna.

      That, we can do quite effectively. Our experience with RTGs (including losing and later recovering a couple of them in the drink) has given our space program good experience with buidling safe containers for transporting such materials. So far, none of the containers have failed. :-)

    24. Re:10m+ by GoldAnt · · Score: 0

      The trouble is finding people who WOULD spend 5 months in your apartment..... =D

    25. Re:10m+ by Rei · · Score: 1

      stresses on the airframe

      Indeed. You really have to run a hot titanium frame with RCC skin - there's really no other way. As I mentioned, the craft would be guaranteed to cost a fortune, due to the frame and skin costs. On the other hand, its payload fraction should more than make up for it.

      we'll have a pretty good idea

      Yes, but will the general public? :) Besides, if we can't even get a CANDU to be completely reliable, how can we get a nuclear thermal rocket to be? Failure on launch can mean atmospheric breakup and fuel disintigration. Fuel disintigration on liftoff wouldn't be as bad as on reentry when you have more of the "short" lived radioisotopes, but it'd be "no fun" to say the least. The biggest problem with contamination of areas is that it trashes property values over large swaths of land if it doesn't cause them to be abandoned altogether.

      This is quite different from a small RTG carrying small amounts of long-lived fuel in pellets designed for reentry (since geometry isn't as important)

      I read a rather funny post

      I missed that one, that's great ;) The thing is, MPDT engines are already light - I read a paper on a small, 20kg *lab model* which could sap 7.1 MW of power and produce enough thrust for 90N (0.45g) acceleration using 3 mg/s of Ar and 34,000 amps (Choueiri & Ziemer at EPPDYL/Princeton). Use superalloys and scale it up, and it's easy to picture getting several Gs from it. The engines are already here, it's that darn issue of power production in the range of 1/2 MW/kg of generator ;)

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    26. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Definitions of exasperate on the Web:

          * exacerbate: exasperate or irritate
          * infuriate: make furious
          * worsen: make worse; "This drug aggravates the pain"

      http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Ae xasperate+&sourceid=mozilla&start=0&start=0&ie=utf -8&oe=utf-8

    27. Re:10m+ by Rei · · Score: 1

      BTW, don't get me wrong - I *really* want to see nuclear thermal rockets lifting off. I just don't think we can get the requisite reliability compared to the risk soon. We'll have to see :)

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    28. Re:10m+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the SHINY, CANDY-LIKE red button?

    29. Re:10m+ by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but exasperate doesn't mean what you think it means (at least not anymore). From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

      Main Entry: 1exasperate
      Pronunciation: ig-'zas-p&-"rAt
      Function: transitive verb
      Inflected Form(s): -ated; -ating
      Etymology: Latin exasperatus, past participle of
      exasperare, from ex- + asper rough -- more at ASPERITY
      1 a : to excite the anger of : ENRAGE b : to cause irritation or annoyance to
      2 obsolete : to make more grievous : AGGRAVATE
      synonym see IRRITATE

      The Princeton WordNet thingy is not the best dictionary to rely on for precise meanings.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    30. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, its payload fraction should more than make up for it.

      The payload fraction may be high, but the payload mass is not guaranteed to be so. The original NASA design for the NASP (a.k.a. The X-30) called for a two man craft with a rather small payload. A lot more testing would have to have been done before they could even think of scaling it up larger.

      Yes, but will the general public? :)

      You said it yourself. Fly them in space for 10 years, and the public will begin to calm down. ;-)

      Besides, if we can't even get a CANDU to be completely reliable, how can we get a nuclear thermal rocket to be?

      I'd say that the primary difference is that a CANDU reactor is a closed-loop system designed for 30+ years of use, whereas an NTR is an open system designed for 30-50 hours of firing. The types of maintenece problems that occur in regular reactors, simply wouldn't occur in a maintenence-free reactor that will only have a useful life of a few years at most.

      Also, you have to look at the differences in design. CANDU wants to run in a nice, safe area where the reaction can be controlled. NTR engines want the reaction the ramp WAY up there, limited primarily by the turbopumps and the heat conductivity of the materials. (Tungsten is one of the best heat conductors that can withstand high temperatures.)

      The failure modes I could envision are:

      1. The reactor begins to melt down. The turbopumps remain active and the rocket makes it to orbit. The engines are as good as scrap. The cladding holds and the materials remain contained.

      2. The reactor beings to melt down. The turbopumps are unable to keep up or non-functional. The reactor shutdown fails. The engine literally melts off and falls into the drink. The molten liquids would cool quickly and form radioactive beads. There is little danger to humans due to the water shielding, though some marine life obtains high doses of radiation. The beads are found and recovered a few months later.

      3. The rocket explodes, spewing radioactive shrapnel into the drink. Same cleanup procedure and issues as point 2.

      4. Engines stop firing for some unknown reason and the ship falls into the drink. See points 2 and 3.

      5. Engines stop firing for some unknown reason and the range officer destroys the craft. See points 2 and 3.

      6. Engines begin melting, spewing flakes of radioactive material into the surrounding atmosphere. Most (if not all) of the material finds its way into the drink, or disperses enough to add a very minor amount of radioisotopes to the eco-system.

      One could probably imagine a few more scenarios, but none that would lead to cataclysmic consequences. :-)

      The thing is, MPDT engines are already light - I read a paper on a small, 20kg *lab model* which could sap 7.1 MW of power and produce enough thrust for 90N (0.45g) acceleration using 3 mg/s of Ar and 34,000 amps (Choueiri & Ziemer at EPPDYL/Princeton). Use superalloys and scale it up, and it's easy to picture getting several Gs from it. The engines are already here, it's that darn issue of power production in the range of 1/2 MW/kg of generator ;)

      Last I heard, they were thinking of using the MPDT as an "assist" booster. i.e. An MPDT craft would have strap-on SRBs that would help it get off the ground. Once sufficient altitude was reached, pure MPDT mode could be achieved.

      Even if that idea doesn't work, we would end up with a VERY powerful space-only engine that would be cheaper, safer, easier to use, and more powerful than either NTR or Orion. ;-)

    31. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Whether Webster declares that it's obsolete or not, many people still use the word that way. Thus it's still correct until English stops being a living language, or it falls out of common usage. ;-)

    32. Re:10m+ by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      BTW, Fun link of the day. Figured you might appreciate that one.

    33. Re:10m+ by Rei · · Score: 1

      That raises a good question: reusable or disposable? Reusable has wear, like has been bad for CANDUs and other reactors. Disposable means a chance for manufacturing defects each time.

      I would imagine "disposable".

      (snip... meltdown scenarios)

      I don't think any meltdown scenario is significant until you have 3000 or so m/s under your belt. By then, you have enough energy that any "fragments" that escape your craft will erode heavily on reentry. If you're just looking at a couple hundred m/s at the time of failure, I think your cleanup scenarios are quite accurate, but the erosion is the problematic issue.

      It wouldn't be a "Chernobyl" of course - Chernobyl was burning old fuel, and this would be burning fresh fuel, at least on liftoff (the reason why a return-reentry would be more dangerous). But it would be a concern - perhaps more like a Windscale or Chazhma Bay-sized accident.

      I think that, if they could demonstrate a decade of space-only reliability, and we don't have any more spectacular normal rocket failures that the public knows about, most people would feel comfortable enough to have them launch from the surface (at least, to have them launch from Middleofnowhere, New Mexico ;) ).

      Come to think of it, for myself, I'd probably be content if they could simply demonstrate relatively intact core survival at different points during liftoff in simulated meltdown conditions with different failure scenarios - say, having a bunch of chemically heated (as opposed to nuclear heated) depleted uranium rods simulate meltdown inside a briefly functioning mockup core atop a Delta, Atlas, or other rocket (Falcon? :) ). Erosion of reentering nuclear material would be my only concern, as if the rocket fails halfway up, it *will* reenter ;)

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    34. Re:10m+ by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Nope, you're thinking of exacerbate.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    35. Re:10m+ by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the SR-71 doesn't leak to cool the skin of the aircraft; it leaks because at operating speeds the parts come together due to thermal expansion. If it were built to be air/water/fuel-tight in the hangar, thermal expansion would cause way more problems for the airframe than a bit of lost fuel.

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    36. Re:10m+ by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Did you read the rest of the paper where they said how long it was operating at that thrust level? afaik, there are no vaccuum chambers currently able to test MW electric thrusters and they don't work in an atmosphere... something about breakdown voltages. Supplying electricity is hard enough for a transient event of a few microseconds, but steady state will require much thicker cables and an enormous power generation capability. Further, the cathode has a tendency to ablate and do so unevenly, creating charge concentrations that further ablate the material and worse, cause the current sheet to concetrate into sparks. Even further: 90 N is not enough to lift a 20kg engine off the ground, let alone any payload of any kind. Or the massive power supply.. which would have to be nuclear to have any chance of working in a gravity well.

      Electric propulsion is not for escaping the gravity well, but it works very nicely for transfer orbits.

      On the reentry problem: Why would you return the engine to the earth? Assuming it's not spent, just boost it into a so-called nuclear parking orbit and come back with just a lander. Eventually you might have enough up there to bolt them together, supply some fuel and send them off to somewhere very interesting should you plan for that.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    37. Re:10m+ by Rocky1138 · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. Just wait until they can power rockets with 126lb NIMFO MILFs. That'll launch MY pocket rocket.

    38. Re:10m+ by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      The problem is risk. Just because you've screened the candidates to find people who are least likely to be bothered by the small spaces, doesn't mean that they won't crack. Placing a crew under those conditions for three years or so (especially when the crew will get some tastes of freedom on Mars) is one heck of a gamble to take

      That attitude is precisely what marks the difference between the america of the 60's, which put a man on the moon, and the america of today...

    39. Re:10m+ by Rei · · Score: 1

      how long it was operating at that thrust level

      From the paper: "The data can be interpreted to describe both the performance of 1) steady-state high power (multimegawatt) MPDTs, and 2) quasi-steady pulsed MPDTs that can operate at arbitrarily low spacecraft bus power."

      They test at a quasi steady-state (pulsed), but believe that the numbers are applicable to steady state.

      no vaccuum chambers currently able to test MW electric thrusters

      "The vacuum vessel is a 2m diameter, 5m long fiberglass tank with eight optical access ports. A vacuum level on the order of 10^-5 torr is maintained by a set of two 1.3m (48-inch) CVS diffusion pumps each with a pumping capacity of 120,000 l/s."

      don't work in the atmosphere... something about breakdown voltages.

      A "breakdown voltage" (also known as the dielectric strength) is where the gap is an insufficient dielectric and the current sparks across. A vacuum is a better dielectric than air, so a system designed to work in a vacuum will spark over in the air. A system designed to work in air would need a larger cross section or lower voltage.

      How would it perform in an atmosphere? I have no clue. I was operating on the notion of similar thrust efficiency, but with effectively infinite ISP (minus what is used to generate power) since you wouldn't need propellant. The same engines can work on essentially any ion; they test everything from light ions like hydrogen to heavy ones like xenon.

      would require much thicker cables and enormous power generation capability

      Did you completely skim past the point where I said that the power generation capability per unit weight is the factor that we don't currently have?

      the cathods has a tendency to ablate

      Catch up with the times, and read about LFAs. Even if you don't use an LFA, what's wrong with sacrificial cathodes?

      90 N is not enough to lift a 20kg engine

      Once again, are you not reading? I stated that 90N provides 0.45g thrust to a 20kg engine, assuming free power. I then continued on to state that this 20kg thruster is a *lab model*, and that it takes no imagination to picture that scaling up and using less insturmented/better alloy materials will easily get several G's thrust, leaving room for payload and power generation. The problem is that to get that kind of power with current tech, we need *tonnes* of power generation equipment, rendering the notion moot.

      works very nicely for transfer orbits

      Indeed - even with current tech. I'm talking about "Future Tech 8". :)

      Why would you return the engine to the earth?

        * Inspection
        * Corrosion repair
        * Upgrades

      But yes, the hope would be, if you have a MPDT engine for transfer orbits, that we would eventually have it be reliable enough that we can simply use it on a "space tug" or whatnot.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    40. Re:10m+ by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      Ok, smart guy, and what is the "baseline expedition"? Hint: it uses chemical rockets.

      Nobody's claiming that nuclear rockets wouldn't provide better performance than chemical ones.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  8. Worker's comp lawsuit? by defile · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, do astronauts get plain vanilla worker's comp like the rest of us here in the states, or does NASA have some custom designed insurance policy?

    1. Re:Worker's comp lawsuit? by Stone+Cold+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

      Neither. There's a click-through EULA in the shuttle's boot sequence.

  9. artificial gravity by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    i have to wonder why a simple system hasn't been impemented yet?

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:Artificial Gravity by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      If it's comparable in level to Earth's "regular" gravity, then I'd say, yes, it would. IANARS (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist), of course, but I can't see a reason why it wouldn't. Gravity is gravity, so assuming that it's only the lack of gravity that contributes to bone density loss (as opposed to the lack of other effects present on Earth but not in space), it should be possible to compensate for this using artificial gravity.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Artificial Gravity by crownrai · · Score: 1

      Sure it will. But isn't the whole point of the ISS to perform tests in (near)zero gravity.

    3. Re:artificial gravity by roguenine19 · · Score: 1

      i have to wonder why a simple system hasn't been impemented yet? I believe it has to do with the relatively small size (and possibly shape) of the ISS. Making it rotate wouldn't generate nearly enough gravity, and it wouldn't be uniform.

    4. Re:Artificial Gravity by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would be an easy experiment. Put somebody in a small room for 6 months and make them execute similar tasks as an astronaut.

      Or... take a sampling of Slashdot readers.

    5. Re:Artificial Gravity by Cyclotron_Boy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Centripetal-force-generated artificial gravity systems, like those envitioned by Arthur C. Clarke shown in the film 2001, have been studied by NASA and the Air Force for decades. Basically, it would require a structure of a few hundred meters radius rotating at a few rpm. The scale of such a habitat would be enormous, and the cost associated has not been shown to be warranted as of yet. However, the commercialization of space will probably bring about such an innovation out of necessity (for comfort).
      Links here, here, and here.

    6. Re:artificial gravity by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no simple artificial gravity solution.

      I'm sure every slashdotter has seen multiple sci-fi examples of a huge spinning doohickey that replaces gravity with centrifugal[1] force.

      Four problems I can see:

      1) If the radial arm is too short, there are tons of biological side effects. Coriolis forces and angular momentum are the two major factors causing these side effects, which can be mediated by intermittent spinning.

      2) An engineering nightmare, especially if done intermittenly.

      3) A logistical nightmare. If the radial arm is long enough to prevent the side effects, construction and maintenace service would, I believe, be beyond acceptable costs.

      4) Would make impossible all the long-term zero-g experiments we need to continue doing.

      However, there is currently renewed research into the idea. I was able to find an entry for the Mars Gravity Biosatellite in Wikipedia, but there is not much information there.

      Anyone know more info (such as projected launch date) about the MGBS or other artificial gravity experiments?

      [1] Yeah, yeah, it doesn't really exist. But it's a useful term.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Artificial Gravity by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Yes. And so will warp drive.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    8. Re:artificial gravity by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about a small spinning doohickey?

      One of those things that, in my opinion, NASA should be studying is how much gravity is needed and how often.

      For example, could the astronauts sleep in gravity for eight hours? One would assume not, since when you're sleeping you're not moving around (okay, give them uncomfortable mattresses :^). On the other hand, from what I understand, the body "detects" that you don't need such tough bones if you're in zero-G so would being in 1G--even asleep--make the body realize that you do need the bone mass? Maybe all they need is a spinning bedroom?

      What about prolonged exposure to 1/8th G, like on the Moon? Will that be attenuated by people going outside in big bulky spacesuits? If I remember my trivia correctly, the astronauts on the moon "weighed" about 180 pounds (moon weight) but were carrying 300 some-odd pounds (earth weight) of equipment to get to that 180. Will people working in "shirt-sleeve" conditions on the moon need to put rocks in their pockets?

      This is one of those things that sort of torques me off with NASA. They have done countless studies on the effects of weightlessness on the human body. They've found various problems. But they don't seem to be doing anything to solve the problems.

      At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, I sometimes think that NASA hasn't solved this problem "on purpose." Why? Because, hey, let's face it--weightlessness is cool. I caught a little bit of NASA TV over the weekend when they were replaying the video taken when the Shuttle astronauts came aboard ISS. People were floating around, bouncing off the walls, etc. It looked really cool. If everything looked "normal" with people walking around, it's a little less interesting to the TV viewer.

    9. Re:Artificial Gravity by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I am not an engineer, but:

            Continually moving parts + need to stay within strict limits + time + lack of easy repair possibilities = does not bode well in my opinion.

            I'm sure it could be done. In theory. Recycling your astronauts and giving them an excellent pension program and a really sexy nurse and/or wheelchair when they retire is probably a lot cheaper.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:artificial gravity by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, I sometimes think that NASA hasn't solved this problem "on purpose." Why? Because, hey, let's face it--weightlessness is cool. I caught a little bit of NASA TV over the weekend when they were replaying the video taken when the Shuttle astronauts came aboard ISS. People were floating around, bouncing off the walls, etc. It looked really cool. If everything looked "normal" with people walking around, it's a little less interesting to the TV viewer."

      Do tinfoil hats prevent bone density loss, too?

      Seriously, though... interesting thoughts, especially about the artificial G sleep chamber.

      However, I think the extremely small radial arm would cause very, very strong side effects, possible far worse than the negative effects of zero-G. The variations in angular momentum would be pretty sick.

      Re: not solving it on purpose, I think that NASA has other priorities than artificial G.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:artificial gravity by robertjw · · Score: 1

      There is no simple artificial gravity solution.

      How about a magnetic field? Give everyone a steel suit and generate a magentic field under the floor. Wouldn't that have the same effect? Probably would still be impractical cost wise, but something like that might be simpler.

    12. Re:Artificial Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gravity is gravity..."

      But artificial gravity doesn't have the wholesome, bone nuturing goodness of organically grown natural Earthbound gravity. And it's kept in tiny inhumane cages, too.

    13. Re:Artificial Gravity by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Centripetal-force-generated artificial gravity systems, like those envitioned by Arthur C. Clarke shown in the film 2001, have been studied by NASA

      One thing I've always wondered about these; if the entire crew went to the same spot (throwing it off balance), would the station de-orbit with the off-axis wobble?

      I think we'll figure out how to make artificial gravity before we get the centripetal force gremlims sorted out.

    14. Re:artificial gravity by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      The amount of magnetic interference would screw with ship systems (i.e. computer equipment) to no end. The energy requirements would be astronomical. Who knows what the long-term physical effects would be. And then, it would only help the legs and parts of the body that help work the legs.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    15. Re:artificial gravity by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Besides the negative effects of long-term exposure to both static and intermittent magnetic fields...

      I believe they use magnetic fields to approximate weight-bearing exercise. You've still got the problem that the "weight" of the steel suit will not be evenly distributed across the skeleton.

      Plus, I can imagine the annoyance factor, and the stench factor.

      I'm curious as to how much energy would be required to generate a magnetic field of sufficient force.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:artificial gravity by jci · · Score: 1

      Heh, which side is the floor?

      That and wouldn't steel shoulder pads, anklets, and bracelets work better to "pull" down a walking person than a whole suit?

      Just more to think about...

    17. Re:artificial gravity by robertjw · · Score: 1

      That and wouldn't steel shoulder pads, anklets, and bracelets work better to "pull" down a walking person than a whole suit?

      I was thinking a whole suit would put load on the arms and hands as well as just the legs when walking.

    18. Re:Artificial Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and the cost associated has not been shown to be warranted as of yet.



      Yea, a few bungi cords attached from their shoulders to their shoes, to put a little stress on their bones, would be a lot cheaper.

    19. Re:artificial gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Principal Skinner.

    20. Re:artificial gravity by Retric · · Score: 1

      There is little diffrence from having a sute that pulls you to the floor vs walking around with suspenders that pull you to the floor. Anyway, I don't think the isues is the lack of foce pulling you down it the lack of shocks on your system. When you walk you keep shifting from no wight on each foot to 2x your wieght on each foot (or more when you run). So a simple suspender system that pulls you to the floor as you run on a treadmill shiould do a lot. (This would also only help you with your bones you would also need something to simulate the strain of pumping blood up hill to the brain. )

    21. Re:artificial gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The coreallis effect (spinning) can really fuck up your head. Even though you would experience gravity, things wouldn't fall straight down, and you'll feel like you are on a merry go round... so it would have to be very very big.... certainly not practical...
      The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin.... I can imagine what it must me like getting adapted to it after a few years, then coming down to earth would probably disorientate someone big time... I wonder what it would feel like.... permanently drunk?

    22. Re:Artificial Gravity by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

      .5 G is good enough damnit!!!

      "Back in my day the earth weighed less and we liked it!"- cranky old man.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  10. Artificial Gravity by Skynet · · Score: 1

    Will artificial gravity negate the effects of zero-grav on bone density?

    --
    Execute? [Y/N] _
  11. question by PW2 · · Score: 1

    Where does the bone mass go to? Do they have calcium suppliments on the IIS? My pet bird can lose bone mass too if she lays too many eggs and doesn't get enough calcium back. I can't imagine what being in space would do to the poor egg laying bird

    1. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The calcium is excreted as waste because, without gravity putting stress on your bones, your body figures they don't need to be as strong. That's why they mentioned the excersize routine - need to put stress on the bones & muscles so that they don't deteriorate any more. Calcium supplements alone won't work because your body doesn't figure it needs it, so won't absorb it.

    2. Re:question by Otter · · Score: 1

      Bone is continuously being remodeled; degraded by osteoclasts and rebuilt by osteoblasts. The bone loss in zero-g is the same as in osteoporotic women, where bone is torn up and excreted faster than it's rebuilt. Just taking calcium won't help.

    3. Re:question by visgoth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Calcium supplements wouldn't help, but there is work being done that may one day lead to a suppliment that would prevent bone loss.

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    4. Re:question by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of those damn osteoarthritis commercials on TV:

      Ask your doctor today.

      And if he won't give you our drugs, find one who will! Remember, we CARE. We don't spend more money on ads than R&D. No sir. We spend the SAME amount on ads as on R&D. And then we charge $100 per pill so we can afford to advertise (errr, I mean research, yeah research) new drugs. Now choke that crap down you little revenue streams! Daddy needs a higher stock price!

      Ahem. Ok, rant over. Seriously, prescription drugs should not be advertised on TV. But, since our corporate overlords control "our" government, what is good for the company is good for the country.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    5. Re:question by slutsatchel · · Score: 1
      From the above article: Donahue looked at bone samples from bears of different ages. Although humans lose bone mass as they age, Donahue found that bears of all ages have equally strong and flexible bones--even though their bones get a five-month vacation from exercise every year.

      Wow. This line of research could have amazing benefits in bedrest, aging, and osteoporosis. Goes to show the benefits of exospecies medical research.

      -- Should we save that rainforest after all?

  12. If you've ever met Mrs. Krikalev... by FlameTroll · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then you would understand just how short a time 748 days in space truly is.

    --
    A simple Troll, born of Rock and Fire, leaving in the basement of my parents volcano and typing on an asbestos keyboard.
    1. Re:If you've ever met Mrs. Krikalev... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's Mrs. Krikaleva. Russian names change depending on gender. /pedantic

    2. Re:If you've ever met Mrs. Krikalev... by Mondoz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Haven't met her, but I've had the pleasure of meeting with him on several occasions.
      He's exceptionally smart, terribly friendly, and has an amazing presence when he enters a room.

      There's a lot of astronauts & cosmonauts that have succumbed to the prima donna syndrome, and don't come off as being nearly as impressive.

      --
      /sig
    3. Re:If you've ever met Mrs. Krikalev... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you've been infected too then? Doesn't anyone realize that the shuttle manual is really a cookbook!?

    4. Re:If you've ever met Mrs. Krikalev... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez. I bet you're a hit at parties.

    5. Re:If you've ever met Mrs. Krikalev... by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

      Her name is Elena. Here's a picture of the Krikalev family. Sergei, Elena and daughter Olga. http://www.space.com/images/h_krikalev_family_03.j pg

  13. quick question.. by joper90 · · Score: 1

    erm.. when and how is he going to get back?
    Did he just not miss the last bus?

    1. Re:quick question.. by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Informative
      he's going back in the taxi parked on the side of the station. It's a soyuz model...

      Besides, that last one to show up there wasn't a bus at all. It arrived with a load of freight, and left with a load of trash. In most writings, this is a class of vessel commonly referred to as the 'garbage scow'.

    2. Re:quick question.. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      when and how is he going to get back?

            He can't go back, his passport has expired.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. This is just astounding by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Considering that the amenities on Mir and ISS make a World War II era submarine look like a 5-star hotel.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:This is just astounding by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Funny
      Considering that the amenities on Mir and ISS make a World War II era submarine look like a 5-star hotel.

      Yeah, but the amenities in Russia make ISS look like a 5-star hotel and a submarine look like Club Med.

    2. Re:This is just astounding by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well except for the, ahem, *view* ;-)


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  15. That's nothing by Psionicist · · Score: 1, Funny

    I've been in cyberspace for decades from my parents basement.

    1. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cyberspace AND you're living in your parents basement, you must have next to no "bone" mass.

  16. What's he got against the other Sergei? by glen604 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Sergei Krikalev has taken the record for most time spent in space away from fellow Russian Sergei Avdeyev"
    Man- that Sergei Avdeyev must be pretty annoying if Sergei K has to go to space to stay away from him.

    1. Re:What's he got against the other Sergei? by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      You know, with a name like that, I wouldn't be surprised if /. accepted the article simply because it was Google related. "Google to provide WiFi in space, according to founder"

    2. Re:What's he got against the other Sergei? by bitweever · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if anyone else read it that way...

  17. Family Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish I had no bones!

    1. Re:Family Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riding on a bus Riding on a bus Sitting next to bums There's an open seat Hope that isn't pee

  18. Because... by Iscariot_ · · Score: 1

    Because the engery required to do this would be ENORMOUS and very costly to implement.

  19. Calcium suppliments don't help by everphilski · · Score: 4, Informative

    Calcium suppliments don't help. The problem is your body realises that you have too much muscle mass and that you are too strong for microgravity, so it stops reinforcing your bones until it percieves a need to strengthen your bones. It's not a lack of available calcium. It is the exact same phenomenon that plagues people on bedrest. Even though they are given the best food and nutrition available when they are off bedrest they are weak and frail.

    -everphilski-

  20. In flight movies.. by modi123 · · Score: 1
    They say the depression sets in post the first two weeks of space-novelty, and I can tell you why. "Freddy Got Fingered" was only fun the first 15 times, but after that - ugg!

    Seriously, I wonder what they do for entertainment? Lan parties? MMORPGs? Can bit torrent stream shows to them? Any answers would be welcomed!

    1. Re:In flight movies.. by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      More importantly how do you spend six months in space without jerking off. Thats some serious control.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:In flight movies.. by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 1

      Watch a movie of what happens to runaway fluids in zerogee and how astronauts usually "catch" them. There's your disincentive right there.

      --
      "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
  21. No by sawyerslim · · Score: 1

    We can't anymore.

  22. Mars Or Bust... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think this might be the first guy to lead a team to Mars since he knows what to expect while in space. Although he might want to play Russian Roulette if all his crew members are whining Americans who can't understand why the ship to Mars has no warp drive.

  23. Gosh, and I thought... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    I was a hit at parties!

    1. Re:Gosh, and I thought... by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      You are a hit at parties. That's because you get piss drunk after your first beer, you pull down your pants, and then proceed to urinate on pets and sofas.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  24. Long term health effects by 8127972 · · Score: 1

    "And growing the bone mass lost from a 6 month stint back, can take a long time."

    He would be the perfect person to study the health effects of long term space travel. That way humans would not only know what to expect on a trip to say Mars, but humans perhaps could come up with ways to counteract any sort of negative effects that space travel has on the human body.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:Long term health effects by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      He would be the perfect person to study the health effects of long term space travel.

      Wow, you should email them this and suggest it! They'll have never thought of studying the long term effects of zero-g on someone who has been in space for a long term, specifically for the purpose of testing the long term effects of space. ;-)

  25. Re:He was seen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do piss off, you and your website, there's a good lad.

  26. Retire to Mars? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In previous discussions about a mission to Mars, the suggestion often comes up about a one-way trip -- one or more explorers who make the trip with no intention of coming back. Pioneers, really, rather than explorers.

    This poor guy, who keeps getting tapped for "hey, ya think you can spend another year or so in zero-g, tovarisch?" is probably having it worse and worse when he comes back to Terra. How much of his "stamina" is due to some freak of biology, and how much comes straight from a Soviet-era "We invented it first, and better!" mindset?

    If he's starting to feel those months in space when he's back on Earth, maybe Krikalev might want to take it easy in his retirement. Like, about 62% easier? Although medical facilities on Mars might be a bit lacking, even by Soviet standards.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Retire to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they could send him a packet of supplies every 26 months. No need for science instruments on that payload, baby!

  27. You've just broken the record, Sergei Avdeyev by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
    You've just broken the record for time in space, Sergei Avdeyev, what will you do now?

    "I'm going to orbit Disneyland!"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:You've just broken the record, Sergei Avdeyev by secolactico · · Score: 1

      That'd be "Luna Park". The happiest place orbiting earth.

      --
      No sig
  28. Wow... by Fred+Foobar · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's not a bad uptime!

    --
    It was a really good paper.
    1. Re:Wow... by igny · · Score: 1

      Yeah, especially considering what it takes to boot up.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  29. The coolest thing about zero G by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    is that it gives you that funky village people hairdo 24/7. No wonder he keeps going back in space...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:The coolest thing about zero G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that stranger doing in my bedroom!?

    2. Re:The coolest thing about zero G by shing0 · · Score: 1

      laptops are thinkpads. good choice.

  30. Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy's a freakin astronomical space badass. He would be the stereotypical grisled veteran in any space movie. Must have been pretty daunting for the space newcomers aboard Discovery to meet the guy who's probably spent more time taking dumps in space then they've been training.

  31. space-farer syndrome ? by protolith · · Score: 1

    That sounds like SPACE MADDNESS !!! to me...

    How long before he tries to eat a bar of soap?

  32. Great Wikipedia link ... Michael Foale, 373 days by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  33. Perfect Slashdotter by AppHack · · Score: 1

    With long stints like that without sex, he could be a slashdotter. :-)

    1. Re:Perfect Slashdotter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've often wondered, can an astronaught jack off in space? I'm serious - they're so closely monitored could they do it without all of mission control knowing about it? "This is Houston, we detect a short in your pants, possible fluid intrusion ..." Yeah, Houston, it's been over 700 days, I was just grinding one out.

    2. Re:Perfect Slashdotter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do it in the bathroom

  34. Obl Red Dwarf quote: by IainMH · · Score: 4, Funny

    RIMMER: How are we fuel-wise?
    KRYTEN: Unchanged for today, sir. However, the supply situation grows
        increasingly bleak. We've recycled the water so often, it's beginning
        to taste like Dutch lager.

  35. Consecutive vs. total days in space by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Shannon Lucid spent 188 consecutive days in space (as compared to 366 consecutive days for cosmonauts Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov). I, too, am curious for our current record holders for most number of total days in space.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  36. How do you regain bone mass? by artifex2004 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a simple question, I know, but if the exercise program isn't doing it, what else makes the bone mass come back?

    1. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what else makes the bone mass come back?

      A bikini! Hay-yo! Thank you, I'm here all week!

    2. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

      what else makes the bone mass come back?

      I can answer that. Although this comes as a surprise to many people, bone is actually living tissue. It undergoes two continuous processes. On the one hand bone is continually reabsorbed by the body, and the minerals (mostly calcium and phosphate) end up in the blood stream. And on the other hand, new bone is always created as well. Those self same minerals are taken out of the bloodstream and deposited to make new bone.

            Now the problem occurs because of the following. One of the main factors that determines where and how new bone is deposited is the constant traction against the bone by tendons. These tendons are attached on one end to the bones, and on the other to muscles. So muscle activity, which puts tension on the tendons, actually favors bone formation along the stress lines in the bone.

            The only problem is that there is just so much muscle activity that you can get from an excercise program. This pales in comparison to the CONSTANT activity that your support, or anti-gravity muscles are doing all the time, 24hrs a day, in an involountary fashion. Now in space, the effects of gravity are gone. So the anti-gravity muscles stop working. So you end up losing the most part of the stimulus that promotes new bone formation. Hence, you get bone loss. The rate of reabsorbtion is now greater than the rate of formation.

            How does it come back? Only through time, excercise, GRAVITY, calcium supplements, vitamin D, and in extreme cases, PTH (parathyroid hormone). Although the physiological function of this hormone is to promote bone reabsorbtion (ie loss), no one is sure why it actually does the opposite when used as a drug. Remineralizing a bone is a slow process however. This astronaut will NEVER get back to where he was when he left Earth.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by sootman · · Score: 1

      Maybe some time on Jupiter would help? :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    4. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by CatsupBoy · · Score: 1
      The only problem is that there is just so much muscle activity that you can get from an excercise program. This pales in comparison to the CONSTANT
      Ok, so here's a dumber follow-up, how about some type of suite that constantly contorts the joints. Say for instance, pants that try to keep your legs bent, meaning you constantly are pushing them straight (much like standing for a long time).

      Couple with that parts of the suite that work the anke, hips, shoulders, elbows, and wrists, i'd say there are your major components. I suppose the spine poses the biggest problem, but why cant this suite pull down on the stomache, and force you to straighten your back by arching it.

      What am I missing here? Sounds like a problem brain pools would have been working on since the early days of space travel, has this one been trumped already?
    5. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if a motion-damping suit, or just individual pieces, worn constantly would do the trick. It would just make it more difficult to move some chosen muscles...you could work different muscles each day.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    6. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Both you and thc69 asked basically the same question. As just a plain old GP I have no idea how to give you a specific, definitive answer.

            I know that this kind of equipment already exists - harnesses that you can slip onto certain joints, connected to electric motors and computers. These units cause continual passive movement at the joint, and they are used by orthopedists and rehabilitation specialists for just that purpose - rehabilitation after an injury, after a long period of inactivity (casts, extended stays in intensive care) or to slow down muscle loss/atrophy after damage to the nervous system.

            There are also electrical units that stimulate the muscles causing them to contract constantly.

            However my understanding is that although these units are reasonably good at maintaining or even improving muscle tone and flexibility at the joint, they are not so good as far as stimulating bone growth is concerned. There's just not enough force involved. You don't just need a muscle contraction, you need muscle pulling a bone against the resistance of gravity. You have to have an opposing force, to create stress in the bone. It's the stress in the bone, not moving the bone, that causes new layers of minerals to be added.

            I guess you could design something that also provides an opposing force - with a couple additional problems. First, you have to make sure that the stress lines you create line up with how gravity would cause them to be lined up, or you would get really weird bone deformities after a while. The shape of a bone is not only defined by genetics but also by its relation to surrounding structures, and the forces it is subjected to. The body is really neat in this way - a design that adjusts all on its own for use or lack of use, or weight changes in the organism. Second, it would be quite a bulky unit. Third, there's no real way you can get to and exercise the vertebrae properly in this manner, and compression fractures of vertebrae are a big problem in osteoporosis and potentially astronauts!

            For more detail you'd have to ask a specialist though :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert the bone mass firmly into Uranus, using a gently in-and-out motion.

    8. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I've heard that NASA has done some experiments with ultrasonics on a Turkey that seems to work. The vibration is seen as stress on the bone by the body--though probably not as targeted as gravity, a combination of ultrasonics and exercise is probably already used by "extended stay" astronauts. I don't know if cosmonauts are doing this.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:How do you regain bone mass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physiologically, PTH is an anabolic bone hormone; it seems to cause bone loss at sustained high levels, such as hyperparathyroidism.

      Other hormones that regulate bone density include sex steroids (estrogen, and androgen, which may be converted to estrogen), growth hormone, and a local mediator called prostaglandin E2 (PGE2).

  37. Air Force officers, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their dependents mostly get to keep the benefits they had, minus the paycheck.

    Servicemen and women can sign up for cheap AD&D insurance, even though they are about to leave for war (or space).

    Civilians who sign on get the Federal Gov insurance and bennies, which aren't as nice but it's still there.

    1. Re:Air Force officers, mostly by LoP_XTC · · Score: 1

      Servicemen and women can sign up for cheap AD&D insurance, even though they are about to leave for war (or space).

      Yeah but even this is only good if the DM sees you make the saving throw ...

      LoP_XTC

      --
      "Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
    2. Re:Air Force officers, mostly by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      > cheap AD&D insurance

      So they roll dice to see if the damage gets reduced by half?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  38. Bone loss calculation by TildeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's been in space more than two full years (24 months). So at an average loss of 1.5% per month, he now would be expected to have less than (1-0.015)^24 = 69.577614% of his original bone mass. That's not insignificant. So how much has he actually lost, and how has he been beating this?

    1. Re:Bone loss calculation by everphilski · · Score: 1

      He wasnt up there 2 years straight. Back on earth the bone mass can regen because of the strain put on the bones. But yea supposedly he does better than most at retaining his bone mass.

      -everphilski-

    2. Re:Bone loss calculation by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      Are you certain that the two significant figures in the left side of your equation result in an answer with 8 significant figures? The body has organs and muscles and other goodies, so the bone mass of even a large man wouldn't be that great. The last few digits of your result could be attributed to the man choosing to drink another gulp of space-milk or not.

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    3. Re:Bone loss calculation by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      So how much has he actually lost...

      Interesting question...not being a bio-anything, I'd suspect that it has to approach some sort of limit where bone loss stops. While the bones don't have to support the cosmonaut's weight, he still has inertia to overcome (he still has mass) to move around while he does work around the station. Holding the body's basic form is a stress on the bones, as is daily activities such as moving equipment from here to there, doing maintenance, experiments, etc. Some sort of bone structure is required for that, so that would be the point at which bone loss stops.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    4. Re:Bone loss calculation by op12 · · Score: 1

      So how much has he actually lost, and how has he been beating this?

      He used to weigh 600 pounds. Now he's normal weight.

    5. Re:Bone loss calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... how has he been beating this?"

      Well, that's one way to prevent bone loss, but it's still embarrassing.

      Sorry.

  39. Tee hee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bone loss...

  40. wow by jjshoe · · Score: 1

    There is hope for people who claim to be big boned!

    --
    -- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
  41. /. Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expect this story to be re-posted every day as new 'news that matters' until he comes down...

  42. Clone the Fellow by truckaxle · · Score: 1

    I say sample this guy's DNA or lets clone him. He will be way to old to go to Mars. He could the basis of a "founding event" for a space fairing subspecies.

  43. The Far Side by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 1

    > people lose around 1.5% of their bone mass per month

    Reminds me of my favorite far side: The boneless chicken ranch

    --
    Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
  44. Re:One of the little known side effects... by OnTheWay · · Score: 1

    Yes. I thought at first that he had spent 748 days in space *away* from fellow Russian Sergei Avdeyev, then I re-read the sentence and I see that "taken away the record from" was the intended meaning.

    Let's see which shuttle picks the cosmonaut up from the ISS. Err, I mean picks up the cosmonaut from the ISS.

  45. OH NO! by xmorg · · Score: 1

    Those Commies are beating us again! Drat! Get some astronauts up to mars NOW! Lets see them beat that! HA.

    1. Re:OH NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be an ignorant American. Russia is not a communist country.

    2. Re:OH NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If cold war were back again Nasa would have already broadcasted the first landing on mars as they did in 1969.

    3. Re:OH NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seven letters you missed: S-A-R-C-A-S-M

  46. I would have expected... by oneiros27 · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you're going to go for Red Dwarf quotes, I would have gone for: Lister: You know what the problem is. Every day it's the same old slot in deep space. No variety. Take Christmas. What did we do Christmas day? Kryten: Oh, ah, you remember, sir. Christmas day, we were attacked by that pan-dimensional liquid beast from the Mogagon Cluster. Lister: Maybe that wasn't such a great example. I'm trying to say our lives are dull, repetitive. We never take time out to smell the roses. We never celebrate anything. Cat: We got nothing to celebrate with, bud. Kryten: Oh, not true, sir. There's a whole case of that wine I brewed out of urine recyc, just lying there, practically untouched. Lister: Call me pretentious if you like, but for me, a truly great wine should not leave you with a moustache that you can only remove with turps.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  47. Gravitational effect by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 1

    So I wonder what it would feel like to return to Earth after that long in low gravity. Would it be very uncomfortable?

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
  48. Even more impressive by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even more impressive, Sergei can write English better than the average Slashdot editor. He doesnt have too many or too few commas, his clauses match their antecedents, and adverbs are not nine words away from their verb. That is something the up of which he will not put.

    1. Re:Even more impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is something the up of which he will not put.

      ITYM "That is something up with which he will not put."

      HTH

    2. Re:Even more impressive by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      That is something the up of which he will not put.

      Jokes making fun of English grammar rules are funnier when they're written correctly. Also, you left out an apostrophe while deriding the grammar of the Slashdot editors.

      That is something up with which I will not put!

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    3. Re:Even more impressive by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Even more impressive, Sergei can write English better than the average Slashdot editor.
      So can a trained bacterium.

    4. Re:Even more impressive by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even more impressive, Sergei can write English better than the average Slashdot editor.

      So can a dead badger. What's your point? ;P

  49. What's the problem? by Jhan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... Basically, it would require a structure of a few hundred meters radius rotating at a few rpm. The scale of such a habitat would be enormous ....

    I keep hearing this over and over. So, make the spacecraft be able to split into two equal parts. Include a few hundred meters of cable to connect the parts. Rotate.

    What's the problem?

    --

    I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could even have one the size of the centrifuge section in 2001, or the size of the Earth cruisers in Babylon 5 (or babylon 5 itself) there would just be a tendancy to get motion sickness. But thats nothing dramamine, or some sort ot implant couldn't fix.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Our experiments with space tethers thusfar have had less than spectacular results, and we're talking about putting a heck of a lot more force on them. About half of the experiments thusfar have ended with a broken tether. One problem was on a charged tether: gas bubbles in the insulation turned to plasma and cut the tether. On another, the shock of the tether deployment stopping led to the failure of the cable. One problem not yet experienced but known to be a risk factor is orbital debris, so a hoytether would be needed.

      Basically, it needs more research and tests, but the funding isn't there. But the benefits are potentially great - not just for artificial gravity, but for magnetospheric orbital boost as well.

      One problem, by the way, of artificial gravity using rotation: uneven centrifugal forces. Your feet experience more force than your head, inversely proportional to the radius of the circle traced out by the floor and proportional to your height. If you have a narrow circle, you won't have as much blood going to your head, and it'd get uncomfortable. So, you'd want a wide circle.

      Also, centrifugal craft/stations for which any docking needs to be done are more complex. You need either the craft that is going to dock to be rotating synchronously, or to have a stationary central hub on your craft/station which connects to the rotating segment. Retaining an airtight craft/station with such a hub would be no simple task. Alternatively, you could stop and restart the rotation of the craft/station, but if this is going to be done regularly, you want a propellantless method to do this (such as two sections rotating in opposite directions - but then, you have complications in travelling between the two)

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    3. Re:What's the problem? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I still don't see the problem.
      You need 1g acceleration in each end.
      First, make the tether WAY shorter. Like, 20 meters or so, not 200 meters or more, what they tried! It can even be a solid beam. Less mass lengthwise, more to spend on thickness and durability. Then just apply sufficiently fast rotation, and make the structures on the ends LIGHT! Maybe 100kg total each.
      Say, use them only for single-person sleeping chambers. 8h a day in full gravity. Four of them, combined into two rotors on a single common axis, so accelerating and decelerating them would be cheap (you regain energy from slowing them down, then spend it on accelerating rotors again.) Just stop the rotors, detach the chambers (which could double as tiny spaceships) and dock them to airlocks. Or make the beam just a thick enough pipe to climb back to the axis to the gravityless zone and into the station core. Of course chambers should either be used in pairs or unused ones be filled with ballast (say, water)

      Some basic faulty assumptions:
      - The whole station has to rotate and have gravity.
      - High R, low Omega.
      - The rotation should never cease once started (because it's expensive)

      Remove those and it suddenly becomes way easier.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:What's the problem? by Rei · · Score: 1

      20 meters

      STEX malfunctioned after only 22 meters of deployment. Also, a 2-meter tall person standing up at the end of a ~20 meter line will get ~90% as much force on your head as your feet. How this would feel, and would it be bad for you in the long run? Who knows. It's *probably* ok, but then again, nobody guessed that zero-G would be as bad for people as it is.

      single-person sleeping chambers

      We don't know how much better for you sleep-only gravity would be - if it's any improvement at all - over no gravity. Furthermore, detached structures would need to have full life support, which means heating, oxygen, toilet (or are they supposed to stop the mechanism, then take an hour to dock, in the middle of the night if they have to go?), CO2 scrubbing, atmosphere sensors, communications, etc. On some of these they could siphon off of the station's facilities when docked (although that still adds complexity); others they couldn't.

      It'd be a huge mass, complexity, risk, and cost penalty.

      you regain energy from slowing them down

      Not if you use propellant. If you don't use propellant, you need reaction mass. What reaction mass are you referring to spinning in the other direction?

      and dock them to airlocks

      Docking is not a simple procedure.

      Or make the beam just a thick enough pipe to clime back to the axis to the gravityless zone and into the station core

      Rotating pressurized connections are extremely difficult to make.

      In short, we need a lot more research, and the money isn't there.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    5. Re:What's the problem? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      STEX malfunctioned after only 22 meters of deployment.
      What kind of stress? What mass attached?

      Also, a 2-meter tall person standing up at the end of a ~20 meter line will get ~90%
      So lie down. Keep these in "horizontal position". It's for sleeping anyway. You wouldn't spend much time while standing up.

      We don't know how much better for you sleep-only gravity would be - if it's any improvement at all - over no gravity.
      Certainly a little. You could spend some time on tasks not requiring much movement - communication, data checks, reading etc. there.

      Furthermore, detached structures would need to have full life support,
      For 8h a time or so only. Some of it could be provided by pipes, to the axis. (the axis would more or less remain still)

      toilet Only for "small business". The "big business" would require stopping it and possibly docking. Which shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes anyway. We're not talking about a 100 ton shuttle. It's more of a big jumpsuit.

      heating, oxygen, CO2 scrubbing, atmosphere sensors, communications, etc. Central facilities could be located in the axis. The chambers themselves would be self-sufficient for maybe half a hour or less. Possibly no need for CO2 scrubbing, heating managed by some isolation, just pour in oxygen. For CO2 poisoning you need the levels above norm for a prolonged period of time.

      It'd be a huge mass,
      About a ton total.

      complexity
      KISS. Make it light, remove most redundant stuff, supply what's needed from the core on the axis, through the beams.

      risk
      A beam that can withstand 200kg of mass is not really a wonder of technology. Just to be sure, make it withstand a ton, exposed to space radiation, in 4 Kelvin, in vacuum, and still it's just a piece of junk you can get for $50 in your hardware store.

      and cost penalty
      Cheaper than health care for grounded astronauts :)

      What reaction mass are you referring to spinning in the other direction?
      Second rotor. Two rotors rotating in opposite directions, motor/generator connecting them together. The same way as dual-rotor helicopters.

      Docking is not a simple procedure.
      Docking several hundreds tons, sure isn't. But this would be probably simpler than astronaut entering the airlock after a spacewalk.

      Rotating pressurized connections are extremely difficult to make.
      They could be pressurized only when not rotating. Kind of airlock. But you're right, big, quickly rotating, pressurized joint would be pretty hard to build, and sealing/unsealing such one, even static, everytime you want to pressurize it, could be tricky.

      In short, we need a lot more research, and the money isn't there.
      We need just some research, but yes, the money isn't there anyway.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:What's the problem? by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      So, make the spacecraft be able to split into two equal parts.

      Well, then you wouldn't be able to jog around the station while Strauss plays in the background.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    7. Re:What's the problem? by Rei · · Score: 1

      what kind of stress

      You can look up STEX yourself. You know google. I'm not your library.

      For 8h a time or so only.

      You still need the systems, and therein lies the cost, mass, and complexity.

      Some of it could be provided by pipes, to the axis.

      Now we're back to rotating pressurized joints - in this case, pressurized with whatever was in the pipe.

      (the axis would more or less remain still)

      You have two objects, one of which is rotating and the other isn't, and you're proposing that they're connected. Explain how you omit rotating joints. Rotating joints in space in which you need to have pressurized substances moving through them (air, liquids, etc) are complicated and failure prone.

      about a ton total

      I seriously doubt that. You're not going to get "100kg modules" for people, for starters - a docking module typically weights several metric tonnes - for example, the Mir-Shuttle docking module was over 6 tonnes.

      cheaper than healthcare for grounded astronauts

      Even if the healthcare is 1,000,000$ per person, you'd be paying more in maintenance costs alone, let alone amortized capital costs.

      risk

      Why do you go on to talk about the beam? I'm talking about the increased risk of decompression from all of the new seals, joints, and valves, the risks of the additional/more complex critical life support systems, and the risks of all of the additional docking.

      simpler than an astronaut entering the airlock

      Airlocks are typically 500 to 2000 kg. But we're not talking about suited-up people here, we're talking about docking. The airlocks aren't heavy to act as shock absorbers - they're heavy because of all of the mating equipment to align and get a tight seal. And the process takes a long time.

      Even an astronaut going through the airlock takes a long time, and goes through a complex process. They first have to exercise on a stationary bicycle to drive nitrogen from their system. Then they go into the equipment lock. After it is sealed securely, they slowly lower the pressure in it to 703 mbar (from 1014 mbar). They then do all of their equipment checks, which is a long list. They have to breathe O2 in the suit for 60 minutes there before they go into the cramped crew lock, which goes down to vaccuum.

      Throughout the process, the astronaut has to always be checking for leaks. Reentry through the airlock is just as difficult. They experience phenomina similar to deep sea divers, and if they don't follow the process, they'll get the bends.

      By the way, you seem completely unaware of how much safe pressurized structures weigh, I'm noticing.

      They could be pressurized only when not rotating

      Than that defeats your premise of having the station life support do the work, now doesn't it? And even still, such a concept would require, at minimum, "docking" the pipes.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    8. Re:What's the problem? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      You still need the systems, and therein lies the cost, mass, and complexity.
      A system that is to last a month without resupply is vastly more complex than one to withstand 8h.
      Now we're back to rotating pressurized joints - in this case, pressurized with whatever was in the pipe.
      No, rotating with the rotors, no rotary joints, just not putting any centrifugal force on the chambers, thus not providing to the force dragging at the beams. They aren't "still", they just pivot in place, very little centrifugal force applied.

      Mir-Shuttle docking module was over 6 tonnes.
      You're still talking about docking a supertanker to the harbour. I'm talking about docking a rowboat.
      risk of decompression from all of the new seals, joints, and valves Not all THAT many of them... Just "dock to the beam". Depressurizing it would just switch the chamber to internal life support, cutting off the outside.
      the risks of the additional/more complex critical life support systems,
      Why more complex? Way simpler ones!
      and the risks of all of the additional docking
      At worst, the chamber could just enter the airlock instead of docking to it, then open inside. Or even it could be DONE that way.
      Even an astronaut going through the airlock takes a long time, and goes through a complex process
      My bet is the process could be vastly simplified...
      Than that defeats your premise of having the station life support do the work, now doesn't it?
      No, only "material" transfer gets cut off (oxygen, etc). Data, power etc could still be transmitted, electrical rotary joints are common, simple and fault-proof.
      And even still, such a concept would require, at minimum, "docking" the pipes.
      No expensive mating problem. The joints remain mated all the time, you just make them airtight. Actually, most common ball bearings are airtight! Of course we don't quite know how they behave in space, so this would require research.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    9. Re:What's the problem? by Rei · · Score: 1

      A system that is to last a month

      All of these systems, even in the simplest version, are expensive, complex, heavy, and need to be maintained.

      they just pivot in place

      That doesn't matter - they still pivot, which makes the seals very complicated and higher maintenance. You cannot connect a stationary object with a rotating object without some sort of rotating joint. You want connected pipes. Thus, the pipes must have a rotating joint - end of story.

      docking a supertanker to a harbour

      I already told you that the joint isn't to withstand stress. They approach at low cm/s speeds, often going down to high mm/s speeds near contact. There's no huge force to absorb. 1 cm/s with 100 tonnes is only 1000 newtons. Assuming that, given the docking speed, it takes 10 seconds to stop, that's 100N/s, or slightly more than the force of a gallon of water sitting on the ground. It's nothing.

      The mass of the docking hatch is in the mating equipment, pressure tight hatch doors. If you want to handle the transfer of air, power, fluids, etc to and from the habitation modules, you're looking at something as complex as the Pirs module: about 3 tonnes.

      depressurizing it would just switch the chamber to internal life support

      Oh, so now we have *two* life support methods - one internal and one external - *and* one of them is powerful enough to keep a vacuum-emptied comparment filled! Now this is rich!

      could just enter the airlock instead of docking into it

      Oh, so you want a 15 tonne airlock instead of a 3 tonne airlock! Got it. It doesn't solve the risks of entering and exitting an airlock (the airlocks don't even have a computer hooked up to the pressure release openings and hatch, out of caution), nor the length of time to do the checks, but if it makes you happy...

      My bet is the process could be vastly simplified

      My bet is that people have been killed before on Soyuz craft due to the dangers of valve failures, and we don't want this to happen again. Guess who's right on their bet?

      No, only "material" transfer gets cut off

      Exactly: material transfer gets cut off. Oxygen is material. Return air gets cut off. Human waste gets cut off. In short, you either need to have 8-hour supplies and all of the pumps, heaters, valves, tanks, electronics, etc to control them, *and* a hatch complex enough to handle fluid transfers (which means multiple pipe dockings), or you have to not have them get cut off.

      The joints remain mated all the time

      *Then You're Talking About Pipes That Rotate*, which as we've both agreed, is very difficult, high maintenance, and failure prone.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    10. Re:What's the problem? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Distribution of stresses.

      If you're designing a single, rotating bar, the tension at the bar will be the strongest in the middle, with the "weight" of each half pulling fully in opposite directions. Because of that, the closer you get to the middle, the stronger the structure will have to be, and this would probably increase the mass of materials used. This could throw off the moment of inertia ("center of gravity," if you will).

      On the other hand, in a ring-shaped structure, the tension of keeping the ring together is distributed equaly throughout the structure, naturally keeping the distrubtion of materials in the structure balanced.

      There's also the matter of moving throughout the structure ("Where are you going to go?"). In a linear shape, odds are you will have traffic going through the middle, involving decreasing spin-gravity and increasing dizziness as you approach the center, and a potentially dangerous transfer of "up" and "down" at the middle. In a ring, on the other hand, centripetal acceleration is generally uniform throughout.

    11. Re:What's the problem? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      You cannot connect a stationary object with a rotating object without some sort of rotating joint.

      No,no,no. They are pivoting TOGETHER with the rotors, so they are "stationary" respective to the rotors, no rotary joints needed! In other words, they are fixed parts OF the rotors, just located in the center of mass, so not putting any strain on the beams.

      They approach at low cm/s speeds, often going down to high mm/s speeds near contact.
      Because if they exceed it, they are going to crash and damage the shuttle/station. A device that light could behave in way less cautious manner and allow for quite a bit of dynamic stress. You can get the same 1000 newtons at 2m/s for 500kg (pessimistic estimate of the weight of the chamber). Of course 2m/s could be quite deadly, but healthy 20cm/s docking speed sounds reasonable. Click, latch, pressurize. It's just 1 atmosphere pressure! You also maneuvre a small mass, not a huge shuttle, so say, get it aligned using a robotic arm, or a set of magnets. No need to employ maneuvre engines all the time. Once the docking is finished and airlock open, all the rest can be transferred even through common cables and valves.

      Oh, so now we have *two* life support methods - one internal and one external - *and* one of them is powerful enough to keep a vacuum-emptied comparment filled! Now this is rich!
      The internal one, 15 mins in space, between rotor and airlock. Just passive thermal isolation, a small bottle with oxygen, for breathing, and basic power supply/battery for all the electronics. That's all. Maybe 5kg total. If a joint is leaking, it's cut off at the valves, so any vacuum-emptying leak simply is cut off. One thing that COULD endanger the cabin air is the main airlock, but it's never being opened except while docked to the station, so no problem here during docking to the rotor.

      In short, you either need to have 8-hour supplies and all of the pumps, heaters, valves, tanks, electronics, etc to control them
      Yes.

      You need air filter, pretty simple and light device. You need heating. Of course NASA makes them into multi-million-dollar systems, but essentially it's just a common heater like these from wal-mart. You need an urine container a.k.a. plastic bag. An air pump. Or just a fan strong enough. And a pressurized air container to resupply.

      *and* a hatch complex enough to handle fluid transfers (which means multiple pipe dockings)
      Yes, but ONLY pipe docking plus strong physical handle (to "hang" on the rotor in 1g), no need for human exit there. Just a flexible pipe joint (socket), not a "dock" as such. Say, a small robotic arm to attach the chamber and connect the pipes.

      *Then You're Talking About Pipes That Rotate*, which as we've both agreed, is very difficult, high maintenance, and failure prone.
      Yes, except while rotating, they are empty, so there's nothing to leak or cause damage. Stop, lock, seal, fill. When pressurised they don't rotate and are firmly connected. Difficult process of mating them gets extremely simplified (they are never disconnected) while failure-prone process of transfering materials and pressurising happens in conditions of "fixed joint".

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    12. Re:What's the problem? by Rei · · Score: 1

      They are pivoting TOGETHER with the rotors

      but not with the space station itself. We're talking about a connection to the space station. The space station isn't rotating, the rotors are. Any connection must involve a rotating joint.

      I really don't have time for this conversation - I think I've provided you more than enough information. Your numbers are all an order of magnitude off from real numbers, as I've more than demonstrated, and your proposal is a maintenance and safety nightmare. I'm not going to sit here and keep citing real numbers while you keep pulling numbers from fantasy land and pretending that docking is simple and airlocks get their mass from being big shock absorbers. It's just not true, even remotely.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
  50. viagra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get your bone back with viagra.

  51. Time traveller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    close to 300 (299,2 *hundred thousand) million miles ought to make him 26 minutes 42 seconds younger than he should be.

  52. Saw that guy in a movie. by Morinaga · · Score: 1
    A.J.: "Have you ever heard of Evil Kinevil?"
    Lev: "No, I never saw Star Wars."

    Lev: "American components, Russian components... all made in Taiwan!"

  53. Irrelevant - we'll shake the bone density back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Exercise generally does squat to retain or build bone mass. NASA research has been indicating that it's the vibrations which occur while you're exercising that actually stimulate the bone growth.

    http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/w eak_knees.html

    http://my.webmd.com/content/article/34/1728_85890

    http://www.galileo2000.nl/home/Eng-galileo.htm

    Astronauts will still have to do exercise to keep from losing excessive muscles but in the future we'll just vibrate them a bit while they're in orbit to keep them from losing bone density.

  54. Ya know... by activesynapsis · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Russian Space agency would probably have more accomplishments if they didn't seem to require every cosmonaut to be named Sergei.

  55. Dear Sergei... by joetheappleguy · · Score: 1

    Dear Sergei, quit hogging the space station, the other cosmonauts want to play too.

    Sincerely,

    Your Space Comrades.

  56. Watch out for Transporter Psychosis... by scovetta · · Score: 1

    I wonder what kind of crazy space-diseases he's picked up, but has also developed antibodies for. When he comes back to Earth, he'll destroy us all! We'll be turning to piles of salt or rapidly aging...

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  57. Cosmic Particles by kidcharles · · Score: 1

    I'd be way more worried about the damage done to his tissues by energetic cosmic particles that didn't get decelerated by that pesky atmosphere we have. He is certainly at a much higher risk of cancer than your average terrestrial human.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    1. Re:Cosmic Particles by Adelbert · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a good way of demonstrating the risks involved in space travel.

      "Oh no! After he burns shit-loads of hydrogen behind him to lift him outside of the Earth's atmosphere, then goes into conditions beyond what the human body ever evolved to do, with only the prospect of a terrifyingly dangerous descent, he'll have A SLIGHTLY INCREASED RISK OF CANCER!"

      You're reducing the achievements of these pioneers to something that any smoker could boast about.

  58. U5MIR by leighklotz · · Score: 1
    Here is a picture of Sergei Krikalev talking to an earth-based school group using his amateur radio equipment onboard ISS. Sergey is an active amateur radio operator while aboard ISS, since Expedition One, The first ISS crew launched October 31, 2000.


    According to Nasa:
    "Dozens of astronauts have used the Space Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment, or SAREX, to talk to thousands of kids in school and to their families on Earth while they were in orbit. They have pioneered space radio experimentation, including television and text messaging as well as voice communication. The Russians have had a similar program for the cosmonauts aboard the Russian Space Station Mir. When U.S. astronauts were aboard Mir in preparation for the long duration missions of the International Space Station, they used amateur radio for communication, including emergency messaging while Mir was in distress."

    1. Re:U5MIR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And guess what? NOBODY CARES!

    2. Re:U5MIR by leighklotz · · Score: 1
  59. Question about solar rays, etc long times in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One of the worries about sending astronauts on long insterplanetary voyages is that solar radiation can cause cancer after months of exposure. My question then: Isn't he supposed to be at risk of developing cancer?

    Or is he still protected by the earth's magnetic field (then again, that won't sheild photons.)

  60. Krikalev is a space-badass! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The reason why Krikalev has all this mission time is that he's shockingly competent and comfortable in the very stressful environment of space. They've tried out many people, but from what I read, conditions that would cripple an ordinary tough guy don't get to Krikalev. I mean, come on, his other job is stunt pilot. This guy is a badass and I hope he fathers a superior race of superspacebeings.

    1. Re:Krikalev is a space-badass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to play volleyball every Saturday with Sergei at the JSC rec center. I didn't know he was a cosmonaut for months.

      I'd drag my ass out of bed at 10am and he'd show up at the center after a few hours of working out. Then we'd play ball for a few hours. I'd go home and take a nap, and he'd run down my street on his way to El Paso or someplace. About 5 pm, I'd go to the store in League City, and he'd be running up the highway.

      Then I'd go to a movie in Webster, come out at 8pm, and Sergei would be running up Highway 3. Then I'd go to the bar, have a few beers, leave at 11pm and Sergei would wave as he ran down Bay Area Blvd.

      The guy is a machine.

  61. That's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been living in Space for 12,045 days. That's 33 years of space filling goodness...

    Now, outer-space...That would be a 0 (zero, el zilcho, nada)...

  62. Does the opposite hold true? by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would a person in a high-gravity situation (relative to earth's gravity) gain far more bone mass? Perhaps in the future days of commercial space travel we will see professional athletes going on sabbaticals to space stations around Jupiter to take advantage of the increased gravity. When they come back to earth with higher bone mass they could then proceed to gain more muscle mass when working out, in order to gain an edge over their competition.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Does the opposite hold true? by Eclypser · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard about one athlete who trained on the planet Krypton. They say he can leap entire buildings!!!

      --
      The comment has already been made. Let's move it along people. Nothing to see here.
    2. Re:Does the opposite hold true? by Silicon+Knight · · Score: 1

      Why exactly would a space station in orbit about Jupiter have increased gravity?

      Sorry, I just had to ask...

    3. Re:Does the opposite hold true? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Because if it were in orbit around Uranus, instead, the Enterprise would come along with a big roll of toilet paper and...umm...yeah.

      Seriously, though, you're correct. It wouldn't. IANAE, but if it's in a stable orbit around Jupiter, it's inhabitants would experience the same microgravity they experience in stable orbit of Earth.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    4. Re:Does the opposite hold true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      space stations around Jupiter to take advantage of the increased gravity.
      Heh. Make up your mind. Is it going to be space station in orbit, or is it going to be "taking advantage of the increased gravity" (i.e. built on the surface of Jupiter)?
    5. Re:Does the opposite hold true? by igny · · Score: 1

      Perhaps in the future days of commercial space travel we will see professional athletes going on sabbaticals to space stations around Jupiter to take advantage of the increased gravity.

      There is no gravity when you are falling and missing the ground. It does not matter whether you are falling on Jupiter, or Earth, or Sun.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  63. Poor Avdeyev by phpWebber · · Score: 1
    Russian cosmonaut, Sergei Krikalev has taken the record for most time spent in space away from fellow Russian Sergei Avdeyev

    Were they pretty close before this? Kind of a mean-spirited competition if you ask me...

  64. Safe Workplace by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the astronauts on Apollo 1 demanded a safe workplace?

    In all seriousness, they probably get some kind of health cover comparable to the military - their service with this civillian space agency will probably give them serious long term health problems while procedures for safe exploration of space are being worked out.

  65. lack of motivation by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    Many space-farers go through a syndrome similar to depression after the novelty and excitement of the first few weeks in space wears off. It is marked by fatigue, lack of motivation, irritability, and problems sleeping.

    I've had this problem now and then at every "normal" job I've worked at so far.

  66. Re:10m+ Playstation 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about Video Game and internet? I would stay there 800 days straight!

  67. Bone mass concerns by DrHanser · · Score: 1

    There was a quote from the article that was overlooked, for not-so-surprising reasons:

    Researchers are also not sure whether the quality of the new bone matches that of the bone mass lost, he told New Scientist.

    This is important for one main reason, that most people don't know. Bone marrow turns into fat as people age, and Krikalev has done quite a bit of aging in the last two years. This article is somewhat related to the subject, and you all might find it interesting.

    --
    What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
  68. Re:Question about solar rays, etc long times in sp by mhearne · · Score: 1

    I think the Van Allen belt is much farther out than the near Earth orbits we have today.

    The moon missions had to worry about cosmic rays, and the colonists on Mars will definately have to worry about them, since the Martian atmosphere is thin and cloudless.

    Michael

  69. Re:Question about solar rays, etc long times in sp by kidcharles · · Score: 1

    The Earth's magnetic field will help protect against any charged particles (including photons, electrons, plasma particles, etc.) because magnetic fields exert a force that points in a direction perpendicular to both the path of the particle and to direction of the magnetic field. This causes charged particles to be confined to a helical path around magnetic field lines, which prevents many of them from penetrating the field and striking the earth. (These particles accumulate at the poles and are responsible for the Aurorae Borealis.) Neutral particles, such as neutrons, pass through unaffected, but can be slowed down by collisions with other particles, such as in the Earth's atmosphere. I believe even in low-earth orbit you are protected by the magnetic field, but you lack the shielding of the atmosphere, and rely solely on the walls and windows of the spacecraft for protection.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  70. Re:Question about solar rays, etc long times in sp by kidcharles · · Score: 1

    I made a mistake in that post, where it says "photons" it should say "protons", i.e. ionized Hydrogen.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  71. Balance is an easy problem to engineer. by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    This is how you'd keep a big rotating space-ring in dynamic balance as persons and equipment move around in it:

    1) Big storage tank full of water at the center axis
    2) Many small tanks evenly spaced around the outer perimeter
    3) Pumps, valves, hoses, sensors and a computer system
    4) ???
    5) Balance!

  72. Wrong, the moon is 1/6th gravity by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    The surface of the moon is 1/6th Earth's gravity, not 1/8th. And simple algebra tells you that if a 200 pound astronaut "weighed" 180 pounds on the Moon, he would be carrying 880 pounds of stuff (180x6)-200.

    And no, there is no conspiracy. Spinning an object in orbit of another body requires constant energy input because the interaction between the two bodies scrubs off angular momentum over time. Not to mention the docking and communication headaches. You couldn't have a high gain data link, looking out a window would make you sick, just not a practical idea in low Earth orbit.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  73. spinning module? by Clith · · Score: 1

    Isn't about time to try some sort of spinning assembly, perhaps only part-time, just to regain some bone mass?

    --
    [ReidNews]
  74. Bone Loss... by IanDanforth · · Score: 2, Informative

    I do bone density measurments for a living so here are some comparisons.

    If he has been loosing 1.5% of his bone mass a month (this is measured from a baseline prior to flight) he's down around 36%. This would put him 6-7 standard deviations below what's normal for his age. While this is very very serious consider these two things.

    1. The younger you are the better your bones are at avoiding fracture regardless of bone mass. Low bone mass doesn't help of course, but he's still probably better off than a 75 year old woman.

    2. People with various diseases like celiac sprue are seen to have densities this low and recover very well when the cause is eliminated. Thus when he returns to normal g he should see rapid bone remineralization. However

    This process will take two or more years. So if you wanted to know what "a long time" means. There it is. After two years at 1 g, I suspect his bone mass will be 95% of what it was at baseline.

    In the meantime he has a hugely increased risk of fracture and will/should probably have to wear all sorts of special padding just in case he falls over.

    As Re-entry can easily hit 5g, I think that would be the scariest part of the whole ordeal.

    I would be interested to know if he will be put on an anti-resorptive thearapy such as Fosamax or even Forteo, though they would probably only do that if he wasn't regrowing bone on his own.

    -Ian, CDT.

    1. Re:Bone Loss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the shuttle the astronauts who had been on MIR or ISS long-stays where made to sit a certain way in a certain part of the ship to minimise the stresses of re-entry g-forces getting to them.

  75. USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who mourns the end of cold war? Whatever the societal consequences, cold war was pretty good for science & tech, especially space exploration.

    Soviets, for all their faults, had a very impressive & wonderful space program & aviation. Buran, Proton, Soyuz, N-1 & various Mars & Venus probes.

    Look, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia's space program is nowhere, as is their Aviation, their military & other science hardware.

    A sad, sad develeopement..

    (and, plz, hold the Soviet Russia jokes, its stale )

    1. Re:USSR by thc69 · · Score: 1

      (and, plz, hold the Soviet Russia jokes, its stale )

      In Soviet Russia, jokes hold you!

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
  76. You're in space... right now... by Mad+Monk · · Score: 1

    Actually, rather like so many "relativistic" types of things, we're all in space. We just happen to have this cool atmosphere thingy, and a really grabby big mass of dirt to fall down on.

    Now, maybe what he's really broken is the amount of time spent at least x-many miles away from a planet of y mass or something. So, really, until he's the oldest man alive(space radiation extreme!), he's got nothing(beyond bone loss, and possibly being truly out of reach of a Jehosephat's Witness).

  77. A member of the first crew to live on ISS? by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 1

    ... thought that read IIS. I thought, jeez, no wonder he had so many exploits to brag about.

  78. Bad news for you by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    I've got some bad news for you. Every human being is at risk of developing cancer.

    Also, watch out! You're being bombarded with photons right now! Your monitor is spewing out COUNTLESS MILLIONS of them as you read this!

    Luckily you're generally safe as long as their wavelength is longer than 380nm. Otherwise you'd be at a GREATER risk of cancer.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  79. ...about 314 million miles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    748 days
    * 24 hours
    * 17500 mph (yeah, approx)

    = 314,160,000 miles

    I'd say he's probably the furthest traveled human being.

    Is a lifetime of car/boat/plane travel further than 748 days in orbit? It would take you nearly 600 years to travel that in a car at 60mph, or nearly 60 years at 600pmh in a jet. Seems like we have a winner....

    Next step - what is his relativistic time shift having spent two years at .0000261 of light speed?

    Maybe just his dog is old? ;^)

  80. Solution to Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The costs can be offset by allowing the Ferengi to open a cantina/brothel on the promenade deck.

  81. off topic, but, by displague · · Score: 1

    They should notice different levels of gravity when they travel from planet to planet on StarGate. Yeah, I know, everyone speaks English, but I hadn't considered the gravity thing before...

    --
    Marques Johansson
    1. Re:off topic, but, by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

      As a scuba diver I've been thinking more along the lines of atmospheric pressure. In my opnion a more imediate problem.

      The bones becoming weaker takes days (or longer) to become a significant problem) as far as I'm aware.

      A bigger or more dense planet will have higher gravity so logically the atmospheric pressure would be greater at ground level.

      Assuming the pressure is almost doubled, then there is only 5 hours before they need to think about decompressing. Take a look at http://www.bsac.freeuk.com/bsac88.xls (note every 10 meters the pressure is doubled).

      We all know about how if you change pressures too quickly you can get decompression sickness (aka the bends). Well they do it instantly and I've never noticed any decompression chambers on that base.

      Commercial divers do something similar. Most only do partial decompression underwater and instead rely on chambers. After all it's not only more comfortable to sit in a pressurized room and do something like sleep, read etc, than float in cold water, but safer (though harder on the body).

      More importantly is the risk they have of Gas Embolism (aka burst lung). Where the effects of decompression sickness take a while to set in (relatively speaking), Embolism's can happen almost instantly and over a much smaller pressure difference. Even an instant pressure change of 25% can cause serious problems. eg a change from 1250mb to 1000mb (1bar)

      One of the first things you learn when you start diving is to always breathe (or at the very least always breathe out if you're going up). The chest can take a large pressure pushing inwards, the lungs can't take much of a pressure outwards before they tear and you get air in your chest cavity. Just like if you try to put too much air into a baloon, it explodes. Think of that baloon being your lungs.

      Ofcourse if the planet is smaller, with a less dense atmosphere (lower pressure) the rick of the lungs exploding is when they go to the planet rather than when they come back.

  82. Now Yoda! by displague · · Score: 1

    Something put, that is, up with which he will not.

    --
    Marques Johansson
  83. Poor Sergei by pointguy · · Score: 1

    Russian cosmonaut, Sergei Krikalev has taken the record for most time spent in space away from fellow Russian Sergei Avdeyev.

    What's so wrong with Sergei that there's a record for spending time in space away from him? Bummer for him!

  84. Superspacebeings by zanderredux · · Score: 1
    Only if cosmic radiation did not render him sterile.

    But we can always clone..... why bother?

  85. Compared to other inactivities by northcat · · Score: 1

    How does staying in space for a month compare to laying in bed for a month because of some illness, with regard to exercise? Probably under a coma so the body doesn't move at all? Do we go under similar conditions or does the mere presence of gravity give a certain amount of "exercise" to the body and thus prevent the bone-loss/damage thing?

  86. Wake Up Jolem!!! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    I know that this sounds really odd to a lot of rational people, but I have reason to believe that an alien invasion of earth has already begun and been in progress for the past thirty three years. There have been many signs, but the evidence I've found with a simple Google search reveals the presence of aliens on earth hiding in plain sight. Here is a perfect example:

    The actor called "Vincent Hammond" is most obviously not from Earth. I was watching the Outer Limits the other night and something seemed very wrong about the evil alien characters. Rather than the usual bad FX that the SciFi channel is so ready to use at a moment's notice, the evil character, Koltok, seemed far too real. Even more telling is that this supposed human actor named Vincent Hammond not only played one, but two aliens in that episode. As if that weren't enough, when I researched this "Vincent Hammond" I could only find pictures of him in various TV shows portraying very similar looking aliens. See here and here. Now could it be that the reson for this is that the same designers were involved in multiple productions? This is highly unlikely. It's a lot more likely that "Vincent Hammond" is an alien and that they really aren't using much makeup on him when he is featured in these programs.

    Also, those Hollywood types are weird enough that they wouldn't even give the idea of employing a space alien, if it makes them money, a moment of thought. We've got major problems. Aliens are among us and they are slowly weaving their way into our collective unconsious. This is highly risky and could lead to an acceptance of their villainous treachery. So keep you're eyes out for space alien scum and make sure that if you see one in person to notify the authorities. THe more warnings like this that the police and military get, the more likely it is that they will begin to take the warnings seriously.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  87. Ob Shaun of the Dead by jskiff · · Score: 1

    Liz: It's just that with Ed here, it's no wonder I always bring my flatmates out, and then that only exacerbates things.
    Shaun: What you mean?
    Liz: Well, you guys hardly get on, do you?
    Shaun: No, I mean, what does "exacerbates' mean?

    --
    It's "no one," not "noone." Who the hell is noone anyway?
  88. wanking by dean.collins · · Score: 1

    wow 748 days without masturbating.....I'd be ready to slit my wrists.....either that or he is very comfortable with everyone back in mission control knowing what is going on. Control 1 do you read elevated heart rates - yes control should be normal in 3 minutes. lol, Dean

  89. Russian records for human suffering by heroine · · Score: 1

    Ever wonder why Russians are always first in pushing the human body to the limit of its exposure to harsh environments? Russians also hold the record for longest time fixing nuclear reactors without radiation suits, longest time spent underwater in sunken submarines with no air, longest exposure to exploding rocket fuel, largest populations in the coldest climates.

    Given that space has many times more radiation than Earth and financial limitations require Russians to train fewer astronauts for longer missions, the longest time in space seems no less like Russians refactoring their predicament into a bragging right than their submarine records.

  90. How did he manage without sex for 2 years? by blingbing · · Score: 1

    or did he? do astronauts masterbate and how? do they carry condoms with them? not flaming..but honestly curious

    1. Re:How did he manage without sex for 2 years? by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      Where's the "-1: More Than I Want To Know" mod option?

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    2. Re:How did he manage without sex for 2 years? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I guess one arm has significantly lower loss of bone mass than the other. The Bjorn Borg of Space this guy is.

  91. Sure, but Foal is in 19th place by waimate · · Score: 2, Informative
    Yes, Michael Foal has spent about half as long as the guy in #1 spot, but what isn't clear from that is that Michael Foal ranks in 19th place. The next American after Foal appears in 33rd place.


    Of the 33 top place getters, 31 are Russian.

  92. So. by millennial · · Score: 1

    This could be called "A Tale of Two Sergeis." Comedy gold.

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
  93. Calcium doesn't help, but bisphosphonates might by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  94. actually two simultaneous records by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
    One for most time spent in space, the other for greatest amount of money spent to break a record of any kind.

    Can anyone guesstimate how many billions of dollars were involved here?

    • Cost of space station
    • Cost of supplies and supply delivery
    • Round trip cost
    We don't have to count the money to fix the shuttle, or any other shuttle costs (?), so that saves a billion or two.

    I'm sure the hard core manned space flight fanatics think this is a great expression of man's quest for exploration or whatever, spending billions of dollars so that Joe Schmo can sit around in orbit for a couple of years. Really important medical advances, here, really important. And science. Science.

    Think of all the unmanned missions throughout the solar system and (shall I dream?) beyond that could have been made with that kind of money. How many Mars Rover missions could have been paid, or trips to the moons of the large planets, or setting up a series of unmanned base stations from the earth to Mars to mount ever more sophisticated and ambitious missions? That my friends would be Space Exploration, not this piddly bullshit we have to be content with.

  95. two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the internet...

  96. 748 days doesn't make us space faring people!! by dezb · · Score: 1

    Ok, so Russian cosmonaut, Sergei Krikalev has taken the record for most time spent in space with a whopping 748 days in space.

    Now that's really quite something when you consider the technology that we're putting folk up into space with, particularly in light of recent issues getting back with Shuttle missions.

    Indeed his ability to deal with the physical hardships in space is quite something, when you consider that under a single atmospheric preassure of 1G, the average American is unable to remain in shape (and tending towards obese), Australian's are unfortunately not much better frankly.

    So I can only imagine what the strain of keeping up with the challenge of what must be a massively disciplined exercise regime.

    Check out the whole story over at New Scientist magazine online.

    My ongoing consern though, and this record simply brings it back to mind, is that if we've got the world's best out there in near earth orbit, pulling just 748 days so far non-stop.

    And that's without the rigors of deep space travel, heck, that's without what should be a reasonably simple challenge of travel within the local group of planets!

    How exactly are we going to eventually break the bounds of our planet and travel out to the local planets, and beyond?

    Space is big, Really big. And that's just the local group, let's not boggle our minds with the really really really big, let's just stick with the really really big.

    Interplanetary travel involves distances of hundreds and thousands of millions of kilometers between fast moving objects (planets for example).

    For example, the Earth travels around our sun at an average sleep around 30 km/sec, Mars is traveling at around 24 km/sec (so that's a difference of about 20,000 kilometers per hour!), and the distance between them is millions of kilometers. Phew - brain hurting yet?

    The legal definition of space is 50 kilometers up, but for our purposes, "space" starts about 200 kilometers up.

    There's still a heck of a lot of atmosphere ("lot" being a relative term) there, but an average satellite can stay in orbit for weeks before the atmospheric friction slows it enough so it falls out of orbit.

    I don't want to belittle what is in todays terms simply a herculean effort. 748 days is 748 days, simple as that, and it's the current record, and more power to Sergei Krikalev frankly.

    But at that rate, and we're talking a mere couple of years really (2.04 years), that's not even a one way trip to some of our nearest neighbors, let alone the return trip, if you were thinking of coming back that is * grin *

    We are though using developments from space technology to do some pretty weird things, for example, the industrialization of a NASA-tested concept for artificially creating meat!

    According to a recently published academic paper, Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale. ( read more about it at GizMag ).

    I wonder if vegies and vegans will now consider eating meat if it doesn't involve killing a living breathing animal? Doubt it.

    Anyway - Three cheers for Sergei, but as for the rest of the space program, no dice, we're clearly generations away from truely being a space faring people.

    Mores the pity!

    --
    --- Dez Blanchfield http://WebSearch.COM.AU "Will work for bandwidth.."
  97. Speed-up/down by Tune · · Score: 1


    In another scenario the entire crew running (at evenly distributed locations) will increase or decrease the rotational speed, hence increasing/decreasing "gravitation".

    Also, the influence of personel movement on rotation speed and center point would depend on height relative to the centre. Climbing up and down to the core (and as/decending at the other side) should be noticeable, but even standing/lying down has minor effects that might accumulate.

    --
    There's no future in time travel

  98. Picking up by Tune · · Score: 1

    You seem to know your stuff pretty well (or at least, a lot better than I do), while also your opponent seems to have a good point in that it's theoretically possible.
    Summarizing, you need rotating joints and stronger beams than currently avaialble, you may be able to relieve some of the strain from the beams by moving some equipment to the rotational center, but on the rotors, nevertheless. (Theoretically, you could do away with the stable spaceship altogether by simply distributing it over the two rotor centres).
    I'd like to believe this is all very simple, cheap and light, but that probably isn't true. The lack of seriuous funding for these kind of tech is mentioned in half of the posts on this topic. So my question is: How much would it cost to do some serious research? In actual dollars. Could a privately owned company like Virgin Galactic ever come up with that kind of money, or will space tourism end a few footsteps from where it's currently at?