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."

71 of 325 comments (clear)

  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 eln · · Score: 3, Funny

      Elvis has been in space for almost 30 years!

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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..
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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
  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!
  3. How many by anandpur · · Score: 4, Funny

    Frequent Flyer miles he accumulated?

    1. 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...

  4. 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.
  5. *whew* by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:*whew* by yurivish · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  6. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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.
      ;-)
    5. 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!
    6. 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. ;-)

    7. 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...

    8. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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*

  11. 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.

  12. 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-

  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. Wow... by Fred+Foobar · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's not a bad uptime!

    --
    It was a really good paper.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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 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.
    2. 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.
  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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'.

  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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 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

  28. 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 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!
  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.
  35. 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.

  36. 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.