Slashdot Mirror


Astronaut to Run the Boston Marathon From Space

BostonBehindTheScenes writes "American astronaut Sunita Williams will run 26.2 miles on a treadmill on Patriot's Day (April 16th for those of you outside of Massachusetts) while runners on the ground will compete in the 111th Boston Marathon, according to this New Scientist article. And yes, she is an actual registered participant who qualified by finishing among the top 100 women in the Houston Marathon in 2006. NASA's press release touts this as yet another space first."

176 comments

  1. Pork. by Morky · · Score: 5, Funny

    I protest! She is wasting precious oxygen paid for by you the taxpayer.

    1. Re:Pork. by arivanov · · Score: 1, Troll

      And when exactly did the US taxpayers pay for the environmental control module and its shipment to orbit?

      Hint - it is one of the non-US components.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Pork. by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Informative

      Parent post didn't mention the US at any point. Or does the fact that it might be a european taxpayer make it all ok?

    3. Re:Pork. by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That should actually be the Russian taxpayer (primary life support is provided by the Zvezda module). And I do not particularly recall any historical period when the rulers of Russia gave a flying fuck about their cittizen's thoughts on governmental spending. In fact, modern Russian state is founded on government diverting taxation money from where it is supposed to go. That what Ivan Kalita (the Wallet) did to start the second Russian state and the tradition has carried on from there onwards.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Pork. by GreyPoopon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or does the fact that it might be a european taxpayer make it all ok?

      Speaking as an American, I'm perfectly happy to let the Europeans pay my taxes. *duck*
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    5. Re:Pork. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hint it is one of the Russian components paid for (including launch costs) indirectly by NASA through a prime contractor.

    6. Re:Pork. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Except someone had to buy the environmental control module.


      Unless the russians just gave it to NASA

    7. Re:Pork. by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      I know you're post was, presumably, intended to be funny (or maybe not), but the way to use the least oxygen is to stay still, and let your muscles slowly atropy. One of the necessities of prolonged space travel is the need to keep in shape, if for no other reason than to be ready for the eventual return. This kills two birds with one stone, so to speak.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    8. Re:Pork. by arivanov · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact - yes.

      IIRC It was MIR2 leftovers which Russians contributed to the space station project and it counted as their contribution.

      It probably still has MIR2 labels here and there. It was launched without insurance and without backup because NASA did not want to pay for it (for the exact reason that they did not pay for it in first place and did not contract it and define the spec). So no govt pork involved there either AFAIK.

      There was some American money involved though, but it had nothing to do with the taxpayers. To be most exact 1 million of private money.

      It was the famous Pizza Hut launch AKA the first advertisement campaign on a space launch vehicle. I remember laughing my arse off seeing NASA admin staff boiling off in a fit of righteous indignation (and obviously in their mind swearing that they did not think of doing that themsleves) on the news after that.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    9. Re:Pork. by bhsurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny (or not), you've pretty accurately described the American government's thoughts on spending as well.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
      Groucho Marx
    10. Re:Pork. by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone around here thing a good word for "answer" is "hint"

    11. Re:Pork. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hint: I'm replying to a guy using that obnoxious term.

    12. Re:Pork. by trentblase · · Score: 1

      ahh... whoosh :(

    13. Re:Pork. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hint: uh nevermind. :-)

  2. Is this really fair? by F-3582 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Physiologically speaking, you don't have any gravity for your blood stream, specifically your heart, to handle. In my opinion you can't compare such a run to a real one!

    1. Re:Is this really fair? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lighten up. I seriously doubt her numbers will be "official". She is running on a treadmill in zero G. It is publicity for the Boston Marathon, and likely good physiological research for NASA.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Is this really fair? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Freefall, not zero-G.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Is this really fair? by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called zero gee by the people who fly people into space and refers to the acceleration of the astronaut's frame of reference. Freefall without rotation is a zero gee environment. Good enough for me even though technically the astronauts live in a 10^-3 or 10^-4 gee environment due to tidal forces and the mass of the ISS.

    4. Re:Is this really fair? by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sometimes great publicity ideas can backfire. I hope they thought about attaching a dynamo and lightbulb combo to the threadmill, it's pretty dark up there in space and the worst thing would be if she tripped up and started falling continuously towards the earth....

    5. Re:Is this really fair? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Well, the fact that the astronaut's frame of reference is *rotating* in orbit around the earth should tell you everything you need to know about whether it's accelerating or not.

    6. Re:Is this really fair? by khallow · · Score: 1

      But it's not from the astronaut's point of view. In other words, the astronaut experiences no force. Hence, they are in zero gee. I really don't see a need to continue this pedantic argument. As I understand it, both terms are used routinely to describe activities in orbit.

    7. Re:Is this really fair? by pairo · · Score: 1, Troll
    8. Re:Is this really fair? by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      In this context, the unit "G" refers to the amount of force applied to the body by the craft it's in (jet, rocket, centrifuge, roller coaster, etc), not a measure of gravitational attraction or acceleration. (Save the pendantry for topics in which you are better informed than your peers.)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    9. Re:Is this really fair? by todslash · · Score: 1

      The more important issue is that there is no force between the runner and the treadmill so you have to be strapped down http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/ eZLS_treadmill_010306.html

    10. Re:Is this really fair? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm not refering to the phrase "zero gravity" otherwise I'd have said that. I guess this is a common misunderstanding that might have been shared by the original poster. A common unit of acceleration is the "G" or "gee". 1 G is very close to (if not exactly) the average gravitational acceleration on the surface of the Earth. 0 G would of course describe the acceleration experienced in freefall.

    11. Re:Is this really fair? by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's pretty clear that the OP is well aware that the spacecraft is not beyond the range of influence of the Earth's gravity (which is infinite, after all).

      At the same time though, in General Relativity a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerating frame of reference (or something like that...), so the sum total gravitational effects experienced in the spacecraft's frame of reference is near zero.

      It could be argued that "zero gravity" is misleading as it will help perpetuate the common myth that weightlessness is due to being beyond the Earth's gravity, rather than it being cancelled out due to the acceleration, but nonetheless, that's a term used to refer to it, and I think it's clear that the OP wasn't misunderstanding the differences.

      I'd question that labelling it as "scientifically inaccurate" constitutes POV, especially when it is backed up only by one person, who is described as a journalist and historian, not a scientist.

    12. Re:Is this really fair? by pairo · · Score: 1

      Duh. I think I was the only one that thought you said zero gravity. :-) Soweee.

    13. Re:Is this really fair? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and likely good physiological research for NASA.
      Sure the astronauts have to do SOMETHING to kill time on the ISS, but I hope Nasa doesn't launch into some sappy ploy about how this is advancing science - unless it is actually true.

      Jokes about taxpayer-funded oxygen aside, the US is paying about $4BN per year for the ISS (including its share of the Shuttle). Assume (generously) that of the 3 people aboard, 2 are Americans. That works out to $3,800 per person per minute, or just slightly under $1 million to run a 4 hour marathon. So you tell me, what will we get for our million dollars?

    14. Re:Is this really fair? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Other than accounting for jitter due to mechanical travel, acceleration due to changes in direction (typical for an aircraft) or raw acceleration (like in a rocket) are indistinguishable from that caused by gravity. Indeed relativistic effects caused by acceleration are also identical if you are talking about moving in a rocket or standing on a "solid" body like the Earth.

      Obviously the "relative" distance and velocity are different if you are talking "true" acceleration, but that is exactly where the semantics break down. The "G" unit is a valid measurement for acceleration caused by moving toward a massive body or due to mechanical effects. Indeed when you talk about "negative G's" in aircraft, it is a a combination of acceleration vectors that include gravitational acceleration in the calculation. In space it is no different.

    15. Re:Is this really fair? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Of course the "microgravity" caused by the mass of the station itself is enough to have a significant impact on some experiments on the ISS, and is one of the reasons why some argue that it is a waste of money to even build the contraption (meaning the ISS) at least if you are going to use the science generated by the ISS as a rationale for continued funding.

      About the only people who use the term "Zero G" is one particular for-profit company doing simulated "weightlessness" and media/PR types.

    16. Re:Is this really fair? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What's the acceleration between her and the floor she is on? It is zero, so she is in zero-G. She is also weightless. Whether or not you want to argue about whether the craft she is in is in freefall or zero-G is a separate issue than what she is experiencing. And no one said "zero gravity." That is a condition that can not exist. There is no distance one can go where gravity ceases to exist. However, since it is necessarily wrong, one can also take the line that it is presumed to be either an approximation or to mean zero-G, and thus could be correct. But, based on your complaint, I do not think that will be the case.

    17. Re:Is this really fair? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Who are they kidding? The ISS gravity environment is pretty good given that you have researchers right next to the experiment. And just because a small number of experiments are too sensitive for the ISS doesn't mean much. I'd say a better rationale is that the ISS costs about 3-5 times as much as it should have and the science it is expected to do is lower value in comparison.

    18. Re:Is this really fair? by Intron · · Score: 1

      "So you tell me, what will we get for our million dollars?"

      5,662nd place

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    19. Re:Is this really fair? by RMingin · · Score: 1

      I believe the accepted technical term you are looking for is 'microgravity'. It's generally accepted as a replacement for the previous and inaccurate 'zero G'. Of course, now there's going to be a 30 to 40 post subthread of flames and flamebait to debate the merits, the ancestry of the participants, and the necessity of the previous posts. Enjoy.

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    20. Re:Is this really fair? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      I do hope that you're not implying that I might have poked a stick into this nerd hive on purpose. The very thought is reprehensible!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    21. Re:Is this really fair? by mjpaci · · Score: 1

      4 hour marathon? Suni is 41 years old. In order to qualify for the Boston Marathon she would have had to run it is 3:50:00 or less.
      see: here

      (By the way, she is bib # 11469. I wonder if she has her official bib and Champion Chips (that that the chip would do much good...)

    22. Re:Is this really fair? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      As I was saying, this was but one of the reasons why the ISS is bad for science. Cost is certainly a factor, as is cross-contamination from other experiments due to the tight quarters. Even the regular "dockings" from the unmaned supply vessels and crew exchanges also cause additional problems, and of course at the moment that construction on the thing is still on-going. I could go on and on, but the ISS is a horrible science platform. There are good reasons to have the ISS, but NASA doesn't want to sell them as they would involve an even more ambitious program (like Moon, Mars, and Beyond) and that the current design of the ISS isn't set up do deal with things like an orbital assembly "drydock" that could build and prepare missions to Mars or the Moon, or serve as an orbital gateway for even unmanned missions where "live" tests of equipment could be worked on in space before it was formally deployed.

      For example, imagine if astronauts could have fixed the Galileo space probe to get its dish to open up before it was pushed out of Earth orbit. When it was 2 million miles away, the controllers were stuck with it shut and couldn't bang on it to get the dish to open up. The ISS certainly could be useful in that manner to service some equipment in this fashion, and make or break some complex missions.

      If Bigelow Aerospace is successful with their business and is actually able to get the modules (and transportation to them) down to a reasonable price, you will find significantly more science "modules" floating in space... including some manned experiments that would have their own private lab that doesn't have to deal with the problems of the ISS. Of course Robert Bigelow is claiming he can build something 10x the size of the ISS for 1% of the cost, but we will have to see if that really is going to happen. With actual hardware in orbit right now, and another module going up by the end of this year, this isn't as big of a pipe dream as it may have seemed in the past.

    23. Re:Is this really fair? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      No. Due to space shuttle delays they were unable to send it up for her. They did sent her an email to "print out" her own bib.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    24. Re:Is this really fair? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      What does gravity have to do with anything? When your heart pumps blood around your body it's not fighting gravity. There is no net upward motion of mass because for every kg of blood that goes up, another kg comes back down.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    25. Re:Is this really fair? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      My cost estimate assumed the astronauts work 24 hours per day, so it's about 30% conservative anyways.

    26. Re:Is this really fair? by F-3582 · · Score: 1

      Then you have a major misunderstanding about how our cardiovascular system works.

      First of all, your bloodstream consists of two different systems - the high-pressure system and the low-pressure system. The high pressure system consists of your arteries and your left heart ventricle (while pumping) and the hydrodynamic pressure ranges from 120mmHg in systolic times (heart pumping) to 80mmHG (heart not pumping, aorta "pumping"). Due to these high pressures the walls of your arteries are very thick in order to resist them and it only contains 15% of your blood. The rest is inside the low-pressure system which consists of the capillaries, veins, the lung system and your entire heart during diastole. The hydrodynamic pressure inside this system is considerably low, but a lot of blood can be stored inside, therefore the walls of your veins are pretty thin for maximum elasticity. In order to keep the hydrostatic pressure as low as possible, they got valves that limit the height of such a blood column to a physiologically manageable minimum. I won't go into further detail.

      This is the reason why your theory is faulty. One liter of blood that goes down results in an extension of the capillaries which reduce the hydrodynamic pressure to zero. Therefore your left ventricle (the one responsible of pumping the blood into this system) is not responsible for anything beyond this. The blood that s inside your veins is moved entirely by processes in your right heart (complex process), so the one liter that goes up is moved physically independently from the one liter that goes down.

      In "zero G", your right heart won't have to deal with any hydrostatic pressure and will therefore always be able to give your left heart the optimum amount of blood. Besides, the blood will probably flow faster through your capillaries which results in more muscle tissue being oxygenated properly. Looks like a good way of studying stamina increase during "zero G".

  3. MOM! by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Moooooommm, Sunie's hogging all the oxygen again!

    Sunie, Cut it out. Don't antaonize your sister.

    But, I gotta win the maaarathonn.

    Well, do it quietly, dear. Your sister has experiments to conduct.

    --
    meh
  4. Treadmill vs road by Liquid+Len · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, I know this is Slashdot. But I'm a geek and a passionate marathon runner as well...
    There's a big difference between running on a treadmill and on a road (besides the boring factor): the relative wind resistance you experience when you move has a very significant impact on your speed. A rule of thumb is that you have to subtract about 1 km/h to your treadmill speed in order to have an idea on how fast you can go on the road.

    1. Re:Treadmill vs road by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I know this is Slashdot. But I'm a geek and a passionate marathon runner as well... There's a big difference between running on a treadmill and on a road (besides the boring factor): the relative wind resistance you experience when you move has a very significant impact on your speed. A rule of thumb is that you have to subtract about 1 km/h to your treadmill speed in order to have an idea on how fast you can go on the road.

      I run as well (and cycle), and there's just no comparison. Treadmill surfaces are a little bouncy and provide some restorative force. There's no hills (those little inclining treadmills at 4 degrees aren't like a real nasty hill. And there's the wind resistance as well.

      Although after yesterday - biking at 15-25mph into another 25mph of headwind - I'd have settled for a 1km/h hit. I was getting about a 12 kph hit. Ugh.

    2. Re:Treadmill vs road by Dolohov · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, running on a road lets the air current pull away the cloud of hot air and humidity that surrounds a runner. On a treadmill she'll have her own little bit of hell, with the air warmed up to body temperature and a little raincloud of sweat droplets. So it may not be harder, but I'm betting it's a lot less pleasant. (I pity the other astronauts who want to use that room...)

    3. Re:Treadmill vs road by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Clearly this is different (the lack of gravity will probably affect things too), but she wanted to take part, and since that's not possible, this is the closest possible match to the ground conditions.

    4. Re:Treadmill vs road by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also being a runner and gymrat I have to disagree, I can run long distance fine, but simply cant stay on a treadmill for more than a few miles. There are really two reasons for this -

      The first is that I (and many I know) find my actual running style is different on a treadmill than 'self-propelled'.
      Second is the physcological factors - the fact that when out running, my mind has to do a certain amount of work paying attention to where I am going, the surface, other road/pavement users etc this means consiously I can 'turn-off', whereas on a treadmill I need to think about something, and even though the treadmills at my gym have TVs and they might even be showing something I am interested in, I still spend a great deal of time looking around, still in 'vigilant mode'; The fact that I *can* step off at any time, ultimately means that after 4 or 5 miles I *will* just do that, when you are 5 miles from home, you just keep going, you can stop but you still have to at least walk home -so I keep running.

      The other factor that would make a treadmill marathon more difficult is the lack of crowd, people cheering on and other runners really do spur you on when things get tough.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    5. Re:Treadmill vs road by Quarters · · Score: 5, Funny

      She'll already be moving close to 17500 mph. How much more of a headwind do you want her to have?

    6. Re:Treadmill vs road by envelope · · Score: 1

      I tend to run a lot faster on the treadmill than I do on the road, mostly because I'm sofa king bored that I try to hurry up as much as possible to reach my mileage goal.

      --

      appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
    7. Re:Treadmill vs road by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Funny

      you think that's a difference. try it in zero G.

      I dare you to run on a real road in Zero G. I bet you cant make it past the first step!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Treadmill vs road by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      4 Degrees? haven't you been to the gym, or watched Rocky IV? They go a bit more than 4 degrees. While I admit that actual running on actual hills it a lot harder on you, if you happen to live where there only is flat land, then the treadmill may be the best hill you have.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Treadmill vs road by gregRowe · · Score: 1

      I run significantly faster on the road than on treadmills. I run about 30 seconds to 1 minute per mile faster on the road than on the treadmill. This is true of my TRAINING runs, not only race events where adrenaline plays a role. The longest I've run on a treadmill is 20 miles.

      I don't like running on a treadmill compared to the road and the boringness is only part of it.

      --
      There\'s no place like ~
    10. Re:Treadmill vs road by RationalRoot · · Score: 0, Troll

      I've never made the marathon, but I've done 18+ mile runs. (Knee went pop) Her claim to have run a marathon holds about this much (holding finger and thumb together) weight, primarily cause she's effectively got this much (holding finger and thumb together) weight. And no hills, no wind, no blazing sun, no patchs of ice on the road to contend with. As if being an AssThrowNot she doesn't have enough to brag about.

      --
      http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
    11. Re:Treadmill vs road by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      4 Degrees? haven't you been to the gym, or watched Rocky IV? They go a bit more than 4 degrees. While I admit that actual running on actual hills it a lot harder on you, if you happen to live where there only is flat land, then the treadmill may be the best hill you have.

      I don't run indoors. Too damned depressing. Also, all the Rocky movies after the first sucked. And I do live in a fairly hilly area, with some 20-30 degree hills, and I haven't seen the treadmill yet that can do that.

    12. Re:Treadmill vs road by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Don't forget she is doing this in MicroGravity as well. I think it is more of a symbolic thing then actual. If she does win I am sure she will get mention but the person who ran the race for real would get the tophy and such.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:Treadmill vs road by geekoid · · Score: 1

      YOUr an exception.

      treadmills take less energy to use then running. That, no gravity, and have vry clean air will make a marathon on the treadmill much easier.

      I would wager if your goal was marathon distance on a treadmill, and you were being watched, you could probably give it a damn good try.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Treadmill vs road by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 0

      so should we upscale her required distance to...say...40 miles??

    15. Re:Treadmill vs road by Massive146 · · Score: 1

      15(to 25)mph into a 25mph headwind? Lance, is that you?

    16. Re:Treadmill vs road by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Her claim to have run a marathon holds about this much (holding finger and thumb together) weight, primarily cause she's effectively got this much (holding finger and thumb together) weight.

      What are you saying? That there is no gravity in Houston? Her "claim" to have run a marathon refers to having run one last year -- on Earth.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    17. Re:Treadmill vs road by jfengel · · Score: 1

      My problem with treadmills is that I have to pay too much attention to them. Maybe I just need better treadmills, but I find that the ones I've used require me to keep too steady a pace to keep me from creeping forward or falling back. As a marathoner I find it's very useful to vary my speed to shift the work to various muscle groups differently. It's all subconscious, and watching to prevent that from happening is exhausting.

      Besides, outside is so much prettier.

    18. Re:Treadmill vs road by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that she will not be dealing with the same level of gravity as the runners on Earth. Sure, she may be tethered to the treadmill, but it will not be comparable. It will still be a significant feat, but I do not believe she should be credited with participation in the Boston Marathon since she is running under such disperate conditions.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    19. Re:Treadmill vs road by garcia · · Score: 1

      Second is the physcological factors - the fact that when out running, my mind has to do a certain amount of work paying attention to where I am going, the surface, other road/pavement users etc this means consiously I can 'turn-off', whereas on a treadmill I need to think about something, and even though the treadmills at my gym have TVs and they might even be showing something I am interested in, I still spend a great deal of time looking around, still in 'vigilant mode'; The fact that I *can* step off at any time, ultimately means that after 4 or 5 miles I *will* just do that, when you are 5 miles from home, you just keep going, you can stop but you still have to at least walk home -so I keep running.

      I know that swimming is different than running but I found that I stopped paying attention after a while when I was swimming long distances. It was better for me to be "turned off" as I ended up not feeling the burn and/or boredom as much.

    20. Re:Treadmill vs road by javaxjb · · Score: 1

      As has been mentioned by others, incline settings and lack of wind as a cooling factor can counter the lack of wind resistance. I have a treadmill that has a minimum incline of 1% (which is the setting I use except when running hill intervals when I crank it up to 8%). I'm never able to run as fast on the treadmill as I can outside -- I'm usually about 0.2 mph slower on the treadmill and on a good day 0.1 mph slower. The speed/pace reading from my foot pod agrees with the treadmill setting, so it's not a calibration issue, either (and my foot pod deviates 1% from my GPS except over very short distances).

      --
      Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
    21. Re:Treadmill vs road by RationalRoot · · Score: 1

      Doh. I kinda missed the qualifier bit. I just saw the "The 41-year-old will run the 42.2-kilometre (26.2-mile) race on the station's treadmill on 16 April and will circle the Earth at least twice during the event, putting her speed relative to Earth far above the other entrants." Ok. So she ran the Heuston Marathon. I do still reckon that to run the Boston marathon, it would be nice if you were in Boston, or at least on the planet at the time....

      --
      http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
    22. Re:Treadmill vs road by Zenaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah -- her running the Boston one is clearly just a nice bit of publicity for the marathon and the space program. I'm sure her time will be utterly and completely unofficial.

      What she SHOULD do is start her own marathon -- the 2007 Space Marathon! She'll win because she'll be the only one in it.

      Obligatory: Fine! I'll start my own marathon! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the marathon and the blackjack!

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    23. Re:Treadmill vs road by LoveGoblin · · Score: 1

      I still spend a great deal of time looking around, still in 'vigilant mode'

      Reading that as "vigilante mode", I couldn't help but think "Jesus, just what kind of gym do you go to?! ...and where can I sign up?"

    24. Re:Treadmill vs road by smackt4rd · · Score: 1

      I agree. I find it alot harder to run on a treadmill than on the road. Maybe it's the fact that you are stuck at a constant speed and it's not as easy to slow down a bit if you need to. I also seem to have alot more trouble keeping cool on a treadmill vs running outside.

    25. Re:Treadmill vs road by smackt4rd · · Score: 1

      I've never run a marathon, but I notice that my times for 5-10k's are faster in a group vs running solo. I'm not sure if that's the amped up factor, or the "drafting" effect. :)

    26. Re:Treadmill vs road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most treadmills will do at least 10% (incline? grade? I don't know), the good ones will go to 15. Unless you're trail running, you're not running up 20-30% grades. There are damn few roads over 18%, and most of the time that's for very short distances.

    27. Re:Treadmill vs road by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I forgot that as well, often I either find myself falling off the back or running into the front of the treadmill. I was running a half marathon last week and the pace makers I was using would often go 20-30m ahead of me and then I would pull back with them. Treadmills require a conscious and deliberate change of pace that is much harder than the natural run.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    28. Re:Treadmill vs road by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Sorry, perhaps I didn't make it clear, I find running long distance outside is easier because you do 'switch-off'

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    29. Re:Treadmill vs road by slutdot · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you on this one. As a runner, I simply cannot run in the gym for any extended periods of time. In fact, I tried to run 5 miles last night on the treadmill and my heart rate is elevated due to the heat in the gym. I was running about about 90% of my LTHR after only 2 miles; normally, I run at about 75% when I'm outside. I gave up at the 4th mile because I got sick of slowing down to keep my heart rate in check. I ended up running another 2 outdoors when I got home from the gym.

    30. Re:Treadmill vs road by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Did you even read my post?
      I assume your not a runner because you would know that (as I stated in my parent post) that distance running is as much if not more to do with psychology than simple physics. And anyway I did also point out that a find that my running style (and quite possibly therefore my efficiency) is different on a treadmill.

      But considering you are such an expert how about this -
      YOU do a marathon on a treadmill, I will do the New York marathon on the streets of New York, because I know that running miles on a treadmill seems like I am working a lot harder than running outside.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    31. Re:Treadmill vs road by giminy · · Score: 1

      A rule of thumb is that you have to subtract about 1 km/h to your treadmill speed in order to have an idea on how fast you can go on the road.

      Also remember the obvious gravitational difference. When running in free-fall, I can push off the ground and coast 26.2 miles in a single step. A major resistance in running comes from gravity, because we have to bend our legs to buckle to gravity somewhat, and then straighten them to counteract gravity again. That takes a lot of energy over a marathon. The only 'real' way to simulate that would be to place her in some kind of a brace that pushed down on her with a force equivalent to her weight in earth gravity, pushing her into the treadmill.

      Of course, where are you going to 'push'. It really wouldn't be fair to push on her shoulders -- her back would get quite sore during the run. The only legitimate way would be to push on her hips, I guess. Interesting device. And, like you said, add wind resistance.

      Reid

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    32. Re:Treadmill vs road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I have to ask a stupid question then. Why do you bother running at the gym at all?
      I don't know if you do other things there besides cardio exercise, but I'm one of the people who do not understand why in the world people go to the gym.

      Jogging outdoors is much better than on a treadmill in many ways, push-ups and sit-ups work great, free weights are cheap (compared to gym membership).

      Unless a person wants arms 12" thick and not be able to move their neck just to "look cool" (looks hideous to me), why does one go to a gym?

    33. Re:Treadmill vs road by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      This has been a great enabler for me. One of the problems with my incredibly bad running ability is difficulty in pacing myself.

      I run too hard and fast for my body to support and I find that I can't keep running for more than a few minutes before I need to slow down and catch my breath. My pace keeps creeping up faster and faster because I'm too impatient. On the treadmill I can adjust speed in small steady increments so that I can run at the fastest pace that I can maintain without having to take breaks because the pace is shown in plain numbers in front of me.

    34. Re:Treadmill vs road by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Most treadmills will do at least 10% (incline? grade? I don't know), the good ones will go to 15. Unless you're trail running, you're not running up 20-30% grades. There are damn few roads over 18%, and most of the time that's for very short distances.

      Indeed I am trail running! That's another thing I don't get on a treadmill: Dirt. In any event, I've never seen the point of paying well over a thousand dollars (with the incline capabilities you mention, I imagine) for something I can do for free by simply finding a trail. So we have: free and scenic, or expensive and boring. Gimme a pair of shoes and a trail any day.

    35. Re:Treadmill vs road by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Different running styles encourage different tools, apparently. I have exactly the opposite problem: I start slow, then taper off. It makes me a fine marathoner (as long as I don't want to win), but I look like a lumbering ox in any distance shorter than that. I look like a lumbering ox at any distance, but there's at least some respect for somebody who can lumber 26.2 miles.

      In fact I'm training for an ultra now, which may suit my running style even better.

    36. Re:Treadmill vs road by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      What she SHOULD do is start her own marathon -- the 2007 Space Marathon! She'll win because she'll be the only one in it. Oh those Kenyans will find a way to win, somehow.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    37. Re:Treadmill vs road by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      So, I have to ask a stupid question then. Why do you bother running at the gym at all? No it isn't a stupid question. Basically for three reasons -
      1. Warming up before stretching, which is before resistance or floor work, and then warming down. As a rule to warm up I like to do around 10 minutes at 8.5+ mph. Otherwise I find I am not lose or warm enough to start exercise proper.
      2. Running on the treadmill allows me to work at specific paces - I increased my 'natural' pace from 8 to 8.5 mph over the last year by running at at least that pace on the treadmill, this was then reflected in the half marathon I ran last Sunday.
      3. Winter - it is cold, wet and DARK. (I have to see where I am going).

      I'm one of the people who do not understand why in the world people go to the gym. Jogging outdoors is much better than on a treadmill in many ways, push-ups and sit-ups work great, free weights are cheap (compared to gym membership). why does one go to a gym?
      In many ways you are correct, the best way to get start getting fit is to just go outside run, cycle and do floor exercises, it after all only costs a pair of trainers. This was how I started. However, unless you live in a tropical climate the weather will limit how often you can do this (I live in the UK). Free weights themselves may be cheap but having the space to use them certainly isn't, let alone the fact that the floor has to be strong.
      This leads me to answer "why does one go to a gym?", again I find many reasons the main one is the same as my big treadmill running issue - psychology. There are naturally days when I am feeling less energetic, if I went home and worked out, I would probably do a little then just get 'distracted', at a gym I just work harder and then end up doing the usual amount. When I go home I feel great because I have worked hard and am tired (a big reason for exercising period). Don't underestimate the motivation that the presence of an attractive person can bring!
      Another big reason is that while I know the basics of working out, I am no expert and the benefit of having an instructor appraise one's technique or teach new techniques is IMO crucial (I don't want a back injury). I spend many hours a week in the gym but I don't want to waste time. Way too many people, 'meatheads' usually, do exercises badly, they are big but no where near as strong or lack the useful endurance that they should have.
      Maybe it isn't the case for gyms where you are, but one of the biggest reasons many people go to the gym is the social aspect. - exercising on your own is great if you have the mindset to do so consistently. Many do not but gym classes such as circuits/aerobics/kick boxing/BodyPump/etc. are great ways to stay fit, having people exercise with you and having an instructor barking orders is perfect for many. I know several people who do 3 or 4 classes a week and stay in great shape, most of my friends are fellow gym class participants.

      Unless a person wants arms 12" thick and not be able to move their neck just to "look cool" (looks hideous to me)
      Well those guys either ARE super strong OR far more likely they are just doing it wrong. You can be in wonderful condition and not be inflated or have restricted necks, the big thing that most body building types go for is maximum strength, which isn't anywhere near as useful as a balance between more strength and more endurance. Don't forget Olympic athletes do resistance work, even the marathon runners.


      Whoa, I can't believe I just wrote an essay for an AC, hope you actually read this. Basically, the main thing to remember is that it doesn't really matter how/where you exercise as long as you do something you can do regularly, do properly and most of all enjoy. I am so much better for being fit now than for being fat four years ago.
      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    38. Re:Treadmill vs road by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Talk about run-on sentences!

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
  5. Patriot Day? by dekkerdreyer · · Score: 1

    Patriot Day? Was this some stipulation of the Patriot Act?

    --
    Dekker Dreyer
    1. Re:Patriot Day? by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      It celebrates the battles of Lexington and Concord of a certain war which you are not a patriot if you cannot name.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Patriot Day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... my calendar shows that date as Sept. 11th. I had no idea it was rolled back so early this year. Must be a daylight savings glitch. :)

    3. Re:Patriot Day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It celebrates the battles of Lexington and Concord of a certain war which you are not a patriot if you cannot name.

      I'm a patriot, and I can name it. It was the war of the treasonous, ungrateful colonists ;-)

    4. Re:Patriot Day? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      It celebrates the battles of Lexington and Concord of a certain war which you are not a patriot if you cannot name.
      That would be the American Insurgency.
      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:Patriot Day? by BadMrMojo · · Score: 1

      It's a Mass. state holiday that gives natives an excuse not to go downtown during the madness that is the Boston Marathon.

    6. Re:Patriot Day? by MrSvenSven · · Score: 1

      Its a holiday in MA and ME. It has been since way before W proposed 9/11 as patriot day.

    7. Re:Patriot Day? by Atario · · Score: 1

      Oh geez, not another American colonists/English flamewar. I thought we had this all settled in 1812? Let me check the timestamps...

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    8. Re:Patriot Day? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      >Oh geez, not another American colonists/English flamewar. I thought we had this all settled in 1812? Let me check the timestamps...

      Don't you remember? We settled it by agreeing to deride the French! Nothing brings the British and the Americans together like a good frog joke!

      (Funny that, what with the French having fought our war for us.)

  6. I heard she really trained for this by raddan · · Score: 1

    In fact, she weighs next to nothing.

    HAND.

    1. Re:I heard she really trained for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The diapers she wears will slow her down though.

    2. Re:I heard she really trained for this by physicsboy500 · · Score: 0

      In fact, she weighs next to nothing.

      yeah, but she's still relatively massive

      --
      The original generic sig.
  7. That place is gonna smell... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...like a locker room.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:That place is gonna smell... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I am sure it already does

    2. Re:That place is gonna smell... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Actually it doesn't. It's filtering system is excellent.

      According to some astronauts, anyways.

      In fact, a Russian smuggled a ciderette on board and lit it up. While it did take 2 weeks to get it cmpletly filtered, the smell is gone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Patriots' Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the unaware, Patriots' Day commemorates the Battles of Lexington and Concord which are considered to be the first skirmishes of the American Revolution, a conflict that was actually fought be people generally considered to be patriots.

    We in Massachusetts have been observing this day long before a certain President co-opted the name to add a bit of jingo to the commemoration of a certain day in September.

    1. Re:Patriots' Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patriots day is celebrated here in Wisconsin, too, although it isn't a state holiday.

    2. Re:Patriots' Day by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 0
      It's easy to remember the date of the battle of Lexington and Concord because it occurred the morning after Paul Revere's ride, and there's this nifty Longfellow poem which starts:

      Listen my children and you shall hear
      Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere
      On the eighteenth of April in seventy-five
      Hardly a man is now alive
      Who remembers that famous date and year.

      So the battle anniversary is April 19th, and is celebrated as Patriots' Day the preceding Monday, which this year is April 16th, and that's when the Boston marathon will be run.

      --
      "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
    3. Re:Patriots' Day by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      We in Massachusetts have been observing this day long before a certain President co-opted the name to add a bit of jingo to the commemoration of a certain day in September.
      It's also a state holiday in Maine, which was part of Massachusetts until 1820. That should be another good hint about how long ago the holiday was created.
    4. Re:Patriots' Day by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

      iawtc. mpu. tia. hand. etc.

      --
      Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  9. Tell us what we REALLY want to know! by erroneus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will she be wearing diapers?!

    1. Re:Tell us what we REALLY want to know! by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course, how else do you think she's going to last several hours without going to the bathroom?

      Have you never driven a long trip with a women in your car? *sigh*

  10. Re:Not to mention... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    moving all your mass forward/uphill vs basically just bouncing up and down. And of course, in space, you don't even have the resistance of bouncing up and down.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  11. In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makers of treadmills expect increased profits as people realise they don't have to go to the expense of actually travelling to a event to take part.

  12. Do I hear a rumbling at Arlington Cemetery? by Bazman · · Score: 2, Funny


    Can you imagine if JFK was president now? "We choose to run on the space treadmill and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are publicity stunts!".

  13. What next? Unix hacker to run the marathan from .. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the C shell?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  14. Taking part in the marathon by Rogerborg · · Score: 1, Funny

    In the same way that with a webcam, you don't need to be on-hand (or on anything else) to contribute to a bukkake.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  15. think of the aliens! by symes · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously, what would our outer-space neighbours think if they picked that moment to swing by and pay us a visit? They're just going to scratch their heads and think we're some backwards species that powers space flight by putting funny sweaty little creatures on treadmills!

    1. Re:think of the aliens! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I thought our whole civilization was mainly funny sweaty little creatures on treadmills?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  16. Gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    One more modpoint wasted.

  17. another contestant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ms. Rosie Ruiz, will be competing in the race from the gym on a cruise ship in the north Atlantic... her mile times will be posted to the race organizers via IM.

    1. Re:another contestant by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      DANGIT, I wanted to make the Rosie Ruiz joke.

  18. I've got the plans for him by yoyhed · · Score: 1

    main.c:

    #include <marathon.h>

    int main() {
    person *unix_hacker = &SOME_FUCKING_GUY;
    run_marathon(unix_hacker);
    re turn 1; //error: probably ran out of breath at mile 0.9
    }

    marathon.h:

    void run_marathon(&runner) {
    &runner = &runner + 26.2;
    return;
    }
    Oh, the C shell. Nevermind.
    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  19. Like Chuck Yeager Said by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    . . . monkeys in a can.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Like Chuck Yeager Said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ". . . monkeys in a can."

      . . . says a monkey on a rock.

    2. Re:Like Chuck Yeager Said by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

      I envision it more like a hamster in a cage...

  20. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you people who were saying the International Space Station was a huge waste of money that was only ever used for pointless publicity stunts - you've all gone quiet now, haven't you..?

  21. What would Einstein say? by antint · · Score: 1

    If she runs too fast she will turn into pure energy, right?

  22. In other news... by dour+power · · Score: 2, Funny

    NASA confirms that Rosie Ruiz has stowed away on a Soyuz supply ship scheduled to dock with the ISS just before the end of the marathon.

  23. Not the same marathon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each marathon is different because of the gradients, the times for the London marathon could not be compared to the New York comparison, so yeah, she'll be running 26.2miles, and she'll be doing it at the same time, but that's where the similarity ends. She's by no means runningt he same marathon. Not to mention gravity and oxygen differences.

  24. Re:Not to mention... by rly2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    She's going to have tethers to keep her down. As a runner, I think it would be an interesting approximation of running.

    While the impact against the treadmill could well be compared to gravity, I wonder whether the zero-gravity will make it harder for her heart to pump blood to her legs. I couldn't imagine running upside down.

    Also, having run on the treadmill, I think a good approximation of running outside would be to set the incline to about 1.5%. Of course, that starts to disproportionately work out your quads as opposed to your hamstrings.

  25. And elsewhere... by ciaohound · · Score: 2, Funny

    an anonymous slashdotter will be competing in the wheelchair category from his cubicle using an Aeron chair and a piezoelectric sensor to detect lateral fidgeting while slinging Java for a large consulting outfit.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  26. I'm disappointed... by GundamFan · · Score: 1

    No mention of The Flash's time traveling space treadmill?

    --
    I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
    Mark Twain
  27. Re:Not to mention... by oni · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in space, you don't even have the resistance of bouncing up and down.

    I don't think that resistance is quite the right word, but I agree with you in general - what she's doing shouldn't qualify as running the marathon. The biggest problem with long-term space travel is bone loss, and NASA has already proven that just tethering a person to a treadmil and letting them exercise doesn't fix the problem. They still lose bone mass. That's all the proof I need that what she's doing isn't the same as running on earth.

    Still, there is a bright side to this. This might just be the longest run on a treadmill in zero-g. And since she has run marathons on the ground, she will be in a good position to report what the differences are and maybe this will lead to better zero-g exercise equipment.

  28. This must be a first....... by codecracker007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    no mention of outsourcing or cows or curry till now.....

    --
    7-8-9-10-0
  29. Will she overheat? by giafly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No gravity means no convection. No headwind means little conduction.
    Will they generate an artificial headwind using a fan, or does the International Space Station have powerful air conditioning already?

    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:Will she overheat? by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      If by "powerful air conditioning" you mean being surrounded by the, near absolute zero, vaccuum of space, then yes it does. All they have to do if she starts to overheat is crack a window. ;-)

      -GameMaster

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    2. Re:Will she overheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No gravity means no convection. No headwind means little conduction.

      This is false on both counts. No gravity just means that hot air goes in every direction instead of mostly upwards. The air still expands, it just doesn't change "buoyancy" since there is no force to pull the less "buoyant" air down.

      Secondly, headwind has nothing to do with conduction. That would be convection you're thinking of. She'll do just as fine as people in a gym would.

    3. Re:Will she overheat? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The ISS probably has significant heating and cooling systems, but I doubt a fan would be that hard to use. Astronauts in microgravity are supposed to exercise often, so I think they probably have that sort of problem taken care of.

  30. Sweat by Barleymashers · · Score: 1

    I hope she is not a sweater or else you are going to have a lot of water flying around the space station. Something tells me that can't be good for all the electronics.

    1. Re:Sweat by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I hope she is not a sweater or else you are going to have a lot of water flying around the space station.

      I think they already have that figured out.
      "Williams runs at least four times a week in space, including two longer runs and two shorter ones, according to NASA. "

  31. Will there be... by zkam · · Score: 1

    ... a simulated Heartbreak Hill?

  32. Heart Break Hill by gh · · Score: 1

    Having done the Boston Marathon, I'm curious how she plans on emulating the experience of Heart Break Hill.

    1. Re:Heart Break Hill by IamWhoIam · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmmm why not run it on a Wii. I would choose the easy option, just sit in my easy chair and wiggle my toes for 20 some odd miles.

      --
      IF you can't be famous be infamous. But for GODS sake be something
  33. Re:Another publicity stunt by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Bush can talk about going back to the moon all he wants. By putting the date out around 2018, he leaves it up to somebody else to actually accomplish it.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  34. Submitter's Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just wanted to say that the submitter's site is pretty interesting, with audio features on stuff all around Boston. It's definitely worth a listen if you are familiar with the city, and will probably be a fun distraction even if you're not.

    Being a Boston thing, this is actually somewhat related, I guess. Funny there's no show on the marathon.

  35. She'll finish first, though by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Funny

    The ISS is moving at 7.726 km/s (I checked this morning - I'm running Orbitron to track a different satellite.) 26.2 miles converts to 42.165 km, so she should traverse the course length in about 5.5 seconds.

    How many steps does it take to complete a marathon from low earth orbit? A one ... a two ... a three. Three.

    1. Re:She'll finish first, though by Ayal.Rosenthal · · Score: 1

      She'll be even faster than the Russian engineer who created gas powered boots. His 22 mph speed would get creamed! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/business/worldbu siness/17gazshoes.html?ex=1175400000&en=67b907f48d 55accb&ei=5070

      --
      Social liberal, fiscal conservative, always sarcastic.
    2. Re:She'll finish first, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So turn the treadmill around and tell her she needs to make it 26.2 miles in the other direction to finish.

    3. Re:She'll finish first, though by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      But those aren't small steps, they're more like giant leaps. :P

  36. Robot proxy by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

    What would be cool is if they had her treadmill linked to a robotic proxy on earth that would follow the marathon route with the real runners.

  37. Gona be a short (~5 sec) race... by OhMickey · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...at 17500mph she should cross at about the 5.35 second mark.

  38. Re:What next? Unix hacker to run the marathan from by mknewman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want to run the Marathon from my Wii.

  39. Running marathon on my couch by steelerguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    It looks like I will be running the marathon on my couch and quit possibly in my bed also, probably won't be doing too much running either, but hey...at least I am participating in the Boston Marathon (even though I not in the correct city or state or registered or even running).

  40. Re:What next? Unix hacker to run the marathan from by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

    Possibly. Marathon has been ported to run on top of SDL, so it does run on Linux and BSD. But why you would want to play Marathon, I don't know.

  41. Idiot American by camperdave · · Score: 1

    ... you are not a patriot if you cannot name.

    So I guess only American history buffs can be patriots then. The many brave European soldiers who fought, and died, opposing Nazi Germany's invasion of their homelands were not patriots because they had never heard of Lexington, or Concord.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  42. She's going like 17000 mph, unfair by gelfling · · Score: 1

    On the other hand she has to 'run' about 60000 miles. They should have made it walkathon they could made up NASA's whole budget for the year.

  43. Will she wear a diaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  44. "sister marathons" in iraq by peter303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many of the popular marathons in the US have same-day events in Iraq. Sometimes the courses are pretty cramped and soldiers do many laps. Probably good for morale.

    1. Re:"sister marathons" in iraq by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      They are good for morale, having run one they're not actually that bad. Some of the airbases that I was stationed at had larger perimeters than the distance of the marathon. Although when I was in Ramadi if I'd run it there I would have died of boredom before the race was over as there was just a small stretch that I could run on and it was only about 1/8th of a mile long.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  45. Effects of running the Boston Marathon in space... by MS-06FZ · · Score: 2

    Of course, you realize that since there's a runner running the Boston Marathon in space, all normal space travel routes will have to be closed, satellites will need to be stopped for several hours or directed in long, convoluted, indirect routes to their destinations - and even then possibly get "stuck" somewhere, unable to proceed until the marathon's over - and any orbiting satellites trapped by this process will be subject to ticketing by the Boston Police for parking violations.

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  46. Re:Not to mention... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Nahh. There won't be the gravity to hold it down at her feet: it'll be free to return to her heart, minus friction losses.

    It's still a long way to run on the treadmill, though.

  47. One of our greatest heroines by heroine · · Score: 1

    Didn't realize they had enough time to run 26 miles on station. Suppose they could learn about metabolism that way.

  48. Gayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make that two! (or four if this and the parent are modded down!)

  49. This is cool and all by br0d · · Score: 1

    but give us what we really want: space porn.

  50. Re:Not to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How do you measure the incline of the treadmill in microgravity?

  51. Re:Not to mention... by Falladir · · Score: 1

    I'm dubious about the effect of inclining the treadmill (in earthbound gymnasiums, not in space). I'd be happy to be corrected here, but since your body isn't rising relative to the earth, as it would be if you were running uphill, you aren't gaining potential energy. I think this means it shouldn't be as hard as actually running uphill.

  52. No way... by CagedBear · · Score: 1

    ... could I run a marathon on that treadmill. No cup holder for my beer!

  53. Re:What next? Unix hacker to run the marathan from by zehnra · · Score: 1

    If not, it must be under the C.

  54. Re:Not to mention... by timster · · Score: 1

    I had a long discussion with my GF on this; I lost.

    Imagine, instead of a runner, a car on a giant treadmill. Assuming that the treadmill is moving at a fixed rate (that is, the force the car places on the belt doesn't affect the belt's speed) the car must do more work to stay in place if the treadmill is at an incline. That's because, while the wheels are turning at the same speed, the car must use more force to counteract the force of gravity.

    Where does the extra work go? The car's force on the belt would tend to increase its speed, so if we assuming that the treadmill moves at a fixed rate, the motor which moves the belt would be doing less work. In fact, if the car's force on the belt exceeds the belt's friction, the treadmill would need some mechanism to absorb the extra work, such as a brake.

    It works a little differently if you're assuming that the belt has no speed regulatory mechanism, and is slowed only by a constant level of friction (as I was, though this isn't true of most treadmills). In that case, more incline will require the car to increase its speed to remain in the same place, and so it will also do more work (as the energy lost to friction will increase).

    The mistake I made is to assume that a treadmill without an active speed regulatory mechanism can remain at the same speed when you increase the incline.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  55. Love by luckyforever5000 · · Score: 1

    I like that she loves running so much that she will take time out of (what many consider) the greatest achievement in mankind to do it.

  56. Human Hamster Powered Space Station. by jerryodom · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to figure out how to wire her glorified gerbil wheel to a power generator. For instance using something like this story where this guy tries hooking up his hamster to generate power.

    --
    For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
  57. spacestation is pork by mattinjersey · · Score: 0

    It would be great if someone found a point to a $100 billion space station.
    Until then we will just see pointless articles like this.
    She must be totally bored.
    I wonder if at least she has a fast internet connection?

  58. Re:What next? Unix hacker to run the marathan from by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    Just so I could frog blast the vent core.

  59. Does this mean... by ineedbettername · · Score: 1

    That she's moonwalking?