Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronauts' Hearts Change Shape In Space

Posted by samzenpus on from the feeling-round dept.

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Astronauts who go into space come back with rounder hearts. Scientists who had astronauts regularly take images of their hearts with ultrasound machines found that the organ becomes more spherical in space by a factor of 9.4%. The researchers believe the change in shape, which is temporary, indicates that the heart is performing less efficiently in zero gravity."

113 comments

  1. Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell me: by QilessQi · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...do any other, ahem, organs become more spherical? Because that could be a deal breaker.

    --
    Koans and fables for the software engineer
  2. It's a miracle it even works at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll need to find a way around the zero-g physical adaptation problem sooner rather than later. Centripetal force and regular physical activity seem to be the main two strategies.

    1. Re:It's a miracle it even works at all by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      find a way around the problem...Centripetal force and regular...

      But do you really want bugs with 100 legs crawling around the station?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:It's a miracle it even works at all by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Will Samuel L. Jackson be in it?

    3. Re:It's a miracle it even works at all by JustOK · · Score: 2

      They'll use millenialpedes. Everything is centered and drawn towards them.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:It's a miracle it even works at all by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe he's using it correctly: "Centripetal: moving or tending to move toward a center."

      Of course, what he probably wanted was "Centrifugal."

    5. Re:It's a miracle it even works at all by fnj · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as centrifugal force; only centripetal force. It takes a force (gravity or mechanical connection) to keep an object accelerating at a constant right angle to its path as a circular path demands.

      What is thought of as "centrifugal" force is actually nothing but inertia.

    6. Re:It's a miracle it even works at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This explains what I'm thinking better than I would http://xkcd.com/123/

    7. Re:It's a miracle it even works at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F=-F

      Fcf=-Fcp

      It's not complicated.

  3. I astronaut-heart you by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Funny

    I O U

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    1. Re:I astronaut-heart you by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I O U

      Well, I guess space flight makes the world go round...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... I mean.. who wants a spherical kidney?! What would that do to your view of kidney beans and other beans?

  5. Astronauts are aces! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Here's a catalog of the old and new shapes: http://www.briarpress.org/?q=s...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  6. Valentines Day by acidradio · · Score: 1

    Great. How will the Hallmark card go for this one? You've completely ruined yet another "Hallmark holiday"! How will we stay in business?

    1. Re:Valentines Day by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      If you haven't noticed yet, the "heart shape" isn't really shaped like a real heart at all.
      There are plenty of theories about how it came to be. Many of the leading theories are
      that it may be originally based on a different organ entirely.

    2. Re:Valentines Day by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If you haven't noticed yet, the "heart shape" isn't really shaped like a real heart at all. There are plenty of theories about how it came to be. Many of the leading theories are that it may be originally based on a different organ entirely.

      Different cultures do have alternate ideas about the seat of emotion and have ascribed this function to various parts of the body.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Valentines Day by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It should be the brain.
      Anything else is wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Valentines Day by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It should be the brain.
      Anything else is wrong.

      Actually it's the genitals.

    5. Re:Valentines Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's many things in a female anatomy which are "heart shaped". And no, the brain is none of it.

    6. Re:Valentines Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's shaped after the seed-pod of a plant that was used by the Romans as birth control. They liked it so much they put it one their coins. It's now extinct. They fucked it to extinction.

      It was thought to look like hanging testicles. Then someone turned it upside down and said, it's a love-heart.

      Probably a Christian. They ruin everything fun.

  7. Spinning Space stations by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

    So, we will need to have a spinning station that will create an artificial gravity. (As seen in '2001 A Space Oddessy')

    1. Re:Spinning Space stations by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spinning stations need to be large in diameter: the smaller the diameter, the faster you have to spin it, and the coriolis force starts to really screw with the people inside it. Great if you want the astronauts throwing up all the time. So spinning stations have to be big, which means expensive.

      The alternative is to tether two stations together, but NASA have a history of serious problems with tethers.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    2. Re:Spinning Space stations by AudioEfex · · Score: 1

      That's also the conceit Star Trek uses, although the entire ship doesn't spin, just a plate within it. Like many space travel issues, we know how to do it, or at least have a reasonable idea of how it can be done, but it's difficult because even if we had the funding, the only ways in which things are possible would have the side effect of turning us into mush/killing us in the process. It's force fields that are the ingredient we really need to make a lot of this stuff work around our fragile human bodies.

    3. Re:Spinning Space stations by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The don't really work.
      I know people love them in sci-fi, but in reality there is no "ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY" You step off one and you..float.
      They need to be large, spinning, and the object it is in needs to be accelerating. If it isn't accelerating the way you are walking, then you just float off.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no spinning in Star Trek
      There is magical artificial gravity.

      How do you know? The captains quarters are the little central point on the main saucer section. In some views of the space ship they are standing "upright" in the "window" that you can see right up the top.

    5. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Just to put it in perspective, IIRC from my high school days as the president of the school's Space Settlement Design Team (don't laugh, we qualified for the international-level finals every year we competed back in the very early 2000s!), a torus a mile in diameter needs to rotate once a minute in order to achieve 1g. Tethers or not, it's hard to keep something like that together.

    6. Re:Spinning Space stations by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      What Star Trek are you watching?

    7. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to be spinning that fast.

      Instead of generating a 1G equivalent force, generate 1/6, or 1/4.

      That would reduce the spin required and reduce the structural weight required.

      Second, nothing says you have to have a ring. Spinning structures have been done before - just put living quarters at one end of a boom, and a counterweight (supplies? another living space?) at the other. Spin the beam about the center. Sure, a 100 meter boom would be nice - with an elevator to get to the center of rotation.

    8. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRMy Star Trek correctly, and I do, their 'gravity' was never meant to be explained. You just had to suspend belief in order to get past the "Why aren't they floating around, Daddy?" questions. It was explained away at the time as, "Future conquered the gravity problem, now just watch the show for Chrissake!" ;>)

    9. Re:Spinning Space stations by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Tethers or not, it's hard to keep something like that together.

      How come? Seems like keeping it together with a tether would be the easy part and putting the whole thing in motion would be the hard part.

    10. Re:Spinning Space stations by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All ofthe NASA designs from the 60's were 10KM across at the smallest. building a tiny one at 1Mile across would be silly 10Km will be a rotational speed of 0.02 Radians per second. or 1 revolution every 6 minutes (Appx)

      Spinning is not the hard part, building it so that it can withstand the 1G of pulling force across the spokes that will have to exist is the hard part. you need to have a safety factor of at LEAST 2 to 1 of the spokes in case of failure.

      Plus you will want the torus to be at least 10km across otherwise you will get a significant difference of gravity from the feet to head and a tiny 1 mile across torus will actually make is so you can feel the spinning in your inner ear.

      This is all off the cuff calculations, I cant be bothered to grab my calculator. but it does not have to be a solid ring, you can start by building a double ended counterweight of two identical sections connected by a single spoke to a hub.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Spinning Space stations by khallow · · Score: 2

      The alternative is to tether two stations together, but NASA have a history of serious problems with tethers.

      It doesn't have much of a history with tethers. And the only one where they actually tried to generate a small amount artificial gravity (on the Gemini 11 mission in 1966), they did get to work after some tribulation.

      Gordon's first EVA, planned to last for two hours, involved fastening a 100-foot (30 m) tether, stored in the Agena's docking collar, to the Gemini's docking bar for the passive stabilization experiment. Gordon achieved this, but as with previous Gemini EVAs, trying to do work for an extended period proved more fatiguing than in ground simulation, and the EVA had to be terminated after only half an hour.

      The passive stabilization experiment proved to be a bit troublesome. Conrad and Gordon separated the craft in a nose-(Agena-)down position, but found that the tether would not be kept taut simply by the Earth's gravity gradient as expected. But they were able to generate a small amount of artificial gravity, about 0.00015 g, by firing their side thrusters to slowly rotate the combined craft like a slow-motion pair of bolas.

    12. Re:Spinning Space stations by camperdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Instead of generating a 1G equivalent force, generate 1/6, or 1/4.

      On a trip to Mars you could start at 1G and gradually reduce the spin until you reach 0.38G (Mars surface gravity). On the way back you increase the spin gradually until you reach 1G again. Over the 8 month trip, this would be imperceptible. Astronauts would be acclimated to the gravity of the destination planet by the time they got there.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:Spinning Space stations by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      The Babylon Project was a dream, given form. Its goal: to prevent another war, by creating a place where humans and aliens can work out their differences peacefully. It's a port of call – home away from home – for diplomats, hustlers, entrepreneurs, and wanderers. Humans and aliens, wrapped in two million, five hundred thousand tons of spinning metal. A self-contained world five miles long, located in neutral territory. A place of commerce and diplomacy for a quarter of a million humans and aliens. A shining beacon in space . . . all alone in the night.

    14. Re:Spinning Space stations by fnj · · Score: 1

      If you have a complete torus, it doesn't need any spokes or hub at all. The hub, and concomitally the spokes, are a convenience for docking.

    15. Re:Spinning Space stations by fnj · · Score: 1

      Star Trek would have needed a considerably bigger budget to have all the actors suspended on wires all the time to simulate zero gee. It's pretty difficult and demanding to give a convincing illusion.

      Also with no controlled gravity field, changing warp speed would have had to be a very slow process, and the they would have had to show everyone taking to restraints every time the speed or direction was varied.

      Star Trek was much less lame than crap like Star Wars or 99% of all productions involving space travel. Just how do you maneuver in space? Certainly not with wings and aerodynamic surfaces like a Tie Fighter! Then there are the insultingly stupid sound effects usually present where there is NO MEDIUM to carry sound. I know Star Trek exterior shots had a swishing sound, but I always considered that an artistic license to satisfy viewers who had little understanding of science.

      2001 got it all stunningly, and practically uniquely, right.

    16. Re:Spinning Space stations by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      This makes sense--only generate enough force as you need to. The problem is, "How much do you need?"

      The Centrifuge Accommodation Module would have helped answer that question as well as questions about exploring Mars and such. Sounds like a handy little device, huh? Pity they cancelled it.

    17. Re:Spinning Space stations by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Warp speed doesn't change the speed of the ship, it changes the size of space around the ship. Not really any big need for inertial compensation, you shrink 10 light years of space into a football field, then just walk to the other side. Thats what the WARP drive is. Seriously, google it.

      Impulse on the other hand, would have needed some sort of inertial dampeners if you could create drives that powerful. Impulse was nothing more than standard ION engines. Its unlikely (not impossible at all) that we'll create that level of impulse drive.

      Space most certainly does have a 'medium'. It is not a vacuum contrary to what you learned in elementary school, and there is even a sound, though you wouldn't be able to hear it with ears made for significantly more dense settings, and you wouldn't care probably since you'd be dealing with the issues that go along with 0 external pressure on a body that wasn't made to deal with a 1 atmosphere pressure differential between inside and out. We're not really 100% sure about whats out there beyond our galaxy, but every indication says its just more of the same, but less dense ... a bunch of hydrogen, a little helium, and a tiny bit of the old stars that went nova.

      Its cute that you try to pick it apart, and you're not entirely wrong from a practical perspective, but you are most certainly entirely wrong from a technical perspective.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    18. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      We could just replace their hearts with artificial models.

    19. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It was explained just fine. They had artificial gravity. They could turn it on and off at will (though it was usually left on); remember in the TNG shuttlecraft bay, there was a big warning that said "Variable Gravity Area".

    20. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Star Trek explained the changing warp speed and direction bit with "inertial dampers", apparently some sort of force-field, probably the same as the artificial gravity but in other directions besides vertical, used to counteract the huge accelerative forces experienced during maneuvers which would othewise cause people to become splats on the bulkheads.

      Tie fighters and X-wing fighters didn't make that much sense, but I believe the official explanation for those was that the wings were necessary for keeping the guns far from the cockpit, though this doesn't explain why the X-wing's wings had to move.

    21. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Also, 2001 did make an error: when Bowman exited the pod and jumped into the airlock, the pod should have been propelled backwards.

    22. Re:Spinning Space stations by Miseph · · Score: 1

      I always just assumed that Tie Fighters and X-Wings had vaguely aerodynamic designs because they weren't pure spacecraft, but rather transatmopspheric dogfighters. Given how often both are shown to do precisely that in the films, it never seemed like much of a stretch.

      The X-Wing's variable geometry does make some degree of sense from that perspective as well, with the X formation providing greater fire variability and the flat providing better aerodynamics and lift in dense atmospheres, as well as a better profile for evading fire. Of course, they never seemed to give a damn about that part in the films, so maybe I'm way off base.

      I strongly suspect that both of those theories are completely invalidated by the non-movie canon... in which case, I still don't care about the extended SW universe.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    23. Re:Spinning Space stations by camperdave · · Score: 1

      ... building it so that it can withstand the 1G of pulling force across the spokes that will have to exist is the hard part.

      Sadly, we have no experience building structures that put loads on cables.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    24. Re:Spinning Space stations by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Just to put it in perspective, IIRC from my high school days as the president of the school's Space Settlement Design Team (don't laugh, we qualified for the international-level finals every year we competed back in the very early 2000s!), a torus a mile in diameter needs to rotate once a minute in order to achieve 1g. Tethers or not, it's hard to keep something like that together.

      Wikipedia suggests that you probably want to keep the speed at or below 2 rpm and certainly no more than 7 rpm.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    25. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that in the very first TNG episode, the entire saucer section is undocked, showing that the bridge is not in the saucer section.

    26. Re:Spinning Space stations by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Erm no. We have really not much idea about gravity, other than it is there and it's affects. Artificially controlling gravity will likely be no more difficult than sending a signal via wireless transmitters, or atomic power, or computers, once we learn how gravity actually works, from that one little bit of understanding many things will grow including getting huge masses cheaply into orbit, enabling very large space stations that will of course not need to rotate, other than perhaps controlling solar energy inputs.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    27. Re:Spinning Space stations by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Was the pod powered up with it's instruments online? A pod like that would have a reaction control system and automated avionics.

    28. Re:Spinning Space stations by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Or you could send a robot and save on spinning spacecraft, food, water, air, and fuel to provide/propel all the above.

      --
      -
    29. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      1g is roughly 9.8N/kg. With a torus a mile across, that's a lot of mass, meaning that's a lot of force pulling away from the center. I was suggesting that not only would it be difficult with the tether that was being discussed, it'd be difficult period. Spinning it up wouldn't be particularly difficult, it'd just take some time and a lot of fuel.

    30. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TIE fighters are shown in extended universe to actually have issues maneuvering side-to-side in atmosphere because the drag would tear off the side panels. The side panels were just solar panels or something like that, I think. Not well thought out at all.

    31. Re:Spinning Space stations by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Or, by killing the human spirit and drive to explore, you could save on the whole kit and kaboodle.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    32. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could send a robot and save on spinning spacecraft, food, water, air, and fuel to provide/propel all the above.

      Geez, what were we thinking? You're right. Maybe we should let some other nation win that space-race.

    33. Re:Spinning Space stations by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Just like a fighter on an aircraft carrier. The wings fold up so you can fit more of them inside the ship.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    34. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you don't have to be a retard?

    35. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, because they showed them changing the wings' position during flight in the movies (I believe one big place was when they were attacking the Death Star in Ep.4).

      Also, there aren't any fighter aircraft which fold their wings for storage that I can think of. If you're thinking of the F-14 Tomcat of Top Gun infamy, it changed its wings' position in-flight to switch from low-speed to high-speed modes. The wings were kept out for greater lift at low speeds (esp. useful for takeoff from an aircraft carrier due to the very short launch length), and folded in for supersonic flight.

    36. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did "winning" earn you? Did you get a cash prize? Did they give you a nice ribbon? Maybe a cake?

      You spent the equivalent of over $200 billion, and when it was done you had 25kg of samples and some video of astronauts falling over. You didn't sustainably advance humanity into space by one fucking inch. The whole thing was a giant waste of time and money.

      So what did you win? Huh?

    37. Re:Spinning Space stations by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      They don't have to be spinning that fast. Instead of generating a 1G equivalent force, generate 1/6, or 1/4.

      Except you don't know whether that solves the problem. We've never done the experiment, not even on animals. 60 years of human space-flight, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we still only have two data points, 0 and 1.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    38. Re:Spinning Space stations by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      "inertial dampers", apparently some sort of force-field, probably the same as the artificial gravity but in other directions besides vertical, used to counteract the huge accelerative forces experienced during maneuvers which would othewise cause people to become splats on the bulkheads.

      It could handle warp speed and high-g manoeuvres (and high-g manoeuvres at warp speed), but the small shock of an impact (which barely budged the ship when viewed from outside) threw them all over the bridge.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    39. Re:Spinning Space stations by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Okay, you're right about the X...I'll give you that one.

      But there a have been plenty of folding wing aircraft, and no, I'm not talking about sweep wings. The first were way back in the 1930s

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    40. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Supposedly, the inertial dampers couldn't react in time for that, or the magnitude of those shocks was greater than the dampers could handle. Yeah, it's BS; we have systems now that can react in tens of microseconds (like car ABS and stability control systems, not to mention high-performance fighter jet control systems).

      The other thing that's even dumber was the bridge consoles constantly exploding and injuring people. Why would so much power be routed through those control consoles? There shouldn't be any more than 12V power going to those things to run the touchscreens.

    41. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wasn't thinking of WWII-era planes, and had forgotten about the AWACS plane, but I didn't realize the F-18 also had folding wings.

    42. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, there aren't any fighter aircraft which fold their wings for storage that I can think of.

      Think harder.

      http://www.aviationspectator.c...

      http://wwwdelivery.superstock....

      http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/a...

      http://www.highgallery.com/car...

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

      http://strangecosmos.com/image...

      http://www.vehiclehi.com/thumb...

    43. Re:Spinning Space stations by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Then there are the insultingly stupid sound effects usually present where there is NO MEDIUM to carry sound. I know Star Trek exterior shots had a swishing sound, but I always considered that an artistic license to satisfy viewers who had little understanding of science.

      Ah. So when Star Wars did it, it was "insultingly stupid". But when Star TREK did it, it was "artistic license".

      No double standard there, no sirree.

      Just how do you maneuver in space? Certainly not with wings and aerodynamic surfaces

      Instead Star Trek had ships bank to turn, and magically slow and stop in space when their engines died. Totally realistic.

      Face it. They were both stupid. Neither even attempted to do space seriously. Neither applied their own in-universe "science" or technology consistently.

      B5 came a little closer with the star-furies. Firefly figured out how to do silence poetically. But no one has ever made a consistent hard SF TV show or movie.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    44. Re:Spinning Space stations by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's BS; we have systems now that can react in tens of microseconds

      Yep. And yes, the exploding consoles. And the lack of targeting systems on their hand-held phasers.

      TNG and later series used portable force-field generators that were the size of three foot posts. But wearable shield-generators were Borg-magic, impossible for any other species. Portable holo-emitters were similarly sized, yet a wearable "cloak". Impossible!

      And those portable holo-emitters included touch, but a remote "away" teleoperation system is unthinkable. "Let's beam down to the dangerous place". Errr, no. Let's beam down a holo-sensor system and just watch it on the holo-deck. Even Stargate had a RC-robot with a camera go first, and that was meant to be contemporary level technology.

      [I have a theory that Star Trek is a post-scarcity (thanks to replicators) version of Idiocracy. Stupid people having adventures. It would explain the bad plots, awful technological inconsistencies, that they had no apparent culture of their own. And damn it would explain a lot about the reboot movies. "You are suspended cadet." "I am the Captain now!" "Duh, okay." Later:"You were good captain, you keep ship now, 'k?")]

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    45. Re:Spinning Space stations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Please don't conflate the reboot movies with the shows and movies that Roddenberry had a hand in. Roddenberry's shows had their problems to be sure, but remember the first series came out in the 60s, at roughly the same time the totally silly "Lost in Space" aired. They can be forgiven for screwing up some technological details back then. The later episodes, not as much, but still. And the plots weren't horrible, and many times were actually fairly brilliant in exploring social issues (different episodes had different writers after all, and the scriptwriting resources available for a TV show are usually much less than those available to a blockbuster movie). The reboots are just plain bad.

    46. Re:Spinning Space stations by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That's the best idea I've heard in a while.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    47. Re:Spinning Space stations by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You know you don't have to be a retard?

      But you do have to understand hyperbole.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    48. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the right not to be speaking Russian under one global communist banner? That enough of a "win" for you?

    49. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Apollo prevented Soviet conquest of the Earth? You fucking moron.

    50. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you go posting ignorant comments, you probably should get an understanding of what the space-race was all about. Go study history first, and then get back to me.

    51. Re:Spinning Space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "space race" was about missiles. The Russians built big rockets. These were seen as important due to the weight of nuclear warheads at the time. The US was not building launchers as large as the Soviets. Hence the concern.

      Kennedy cast about for a project that would demonstrate the US's ability to launch a larger payload than the Russians. NASA suggested the manned moon landing. Kennedy eventually agreed.

      Von Braun wanted to do it with smaller rockets, on the scale of Gemini using EOR, which was brushed off because it didn't meet the actual purpose, which was to demonstrate a heavy lift capacity. [There was a legendary meeting between Kennedy and James Webb, where Webb was trying to sell Kennedy on the post-Apollo ideas. Kennedy cut him off, "I have no interest in space, this is just about the rocket".]

      However, once the cost was apparent, Kennedy realised that he'd made a mistake. So he started fishing around the idea of a joint lunar landing (singular) with the Soviets. After being initially rejected when he publicly proposed it at the UN, he eventually won over Khrushchev. When Kennedy was assassinated, about a month later, Khrushchev backed away again. Eventually the idea re-emerged under Brezhnev, but only as Apollo-Soyuz.

      The whole thing was, of course, pointless. Warheads soon no longer required ever larger missiles, and deep space had no military potential. So the Russians pretended they were never interested in the moon, and the US public too had mostly lost interest by Apollo 12. Apollo 13 couldn't even get TV coverage until the accident. The last few Apollo missions were cancelled, likewise all the post-Apollo plans - except Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz, which intentionally used up left over hardware. Since the US didn't need to develop heavy lifters for missiles, there was no military reason for Apollo and support for big launchers had dried up. As too projects like NERVA. So Nixon was left with an infrastructure he didn't want, which now had its own political lobby, and no reason for it. So he picked the shuttle, which he'd been told would be cheap and soon handed over to commercial players like Boeing, essentially becoming a branch of the aviation industry. But NASA's self-preservation turned it into a 100 tonne monster spaceplane, something that could never be commercial, ensuring their own continued survival.

      Now feel free to explain how Apollo prevent the Soviet conquest of the Earth, you fucking moron.

  8. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by kruach+aum · · Score: 1, Redundant

    With a spherical penis I could knock up (down) all the bowling pins in the world.

  9. How about the gallbladder? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    What shape did the gallbladder become?

    1. Re:How about the gallbladder? by swb · · Score: 2

      It's fairly galling no matter what shape it is.

  10. Human anatomy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that a space born human would have totally different anatomy if it is being conceived in space. Although this experiment is sort of risky because theemale should be able to stay for almost a year and risk her own life along with the baby's.

  11. Amusement park? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Great if you want the astronauts throwing up all the time

    So THAT'S why the typical rotating amusement-park space station is smaller than your other typical rotating space stations!

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  12. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...do any other, ahem, organs become more spherical? Because that could be a deal breaker.

    Lucky for you the effect is temporary.. So go ahead and take the virgin trip...

  13. Assume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assume a spherical, frictionless heart..in space!

  14. But do they need it? by wjcofkc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would be curious to know if the heart even has to be as efficient in micro gravity.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:But do they need it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they need it. Without a heart they'd turn into bankers.

    2. Re:But do they need it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously not.

      It's not that the heart changes shape just because it's space, it's that the heart adapts to it's new surroundings – much like most of the human body, I would imagine.

    3. Re:But do they need it? by kinnell · · Score: 1

      More to the point, I wonder if a more spherical shape isn't more efficient in micro gravity and this is what drives the change. The heart no longer has to pump blood uphill, so it would stand to reason that a shape which generates less force while using less energy would be optimum, and out bodies tend to be pretty good at finding the most energy efficient way of adapting to the environment they are in.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  15. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by chuckugly · · Score: 2

    We need to put Lucie Wilde into space for further, um, experiments. Science experiments, that is.

  16. Microgravity by Nimey · · Score: 1

    I'll be that guy and point out that in low Earth orbit (indeed, any orbit) we experience *microgravity*, not zero gravity. Nowhere in the universe is gravitational force zero.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Microgravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And I'll be that other guy and point out that in LEO, you have not increased your distance from the center of the earth enough to make much change in how much force gravity applies to you. You're just in a really long freefall.

    2. Re:Microgravity by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      And I'll be the third type of guy and point out that the reason they say "micro-gravity" instead of "zero g" is because across larger man-made structures, such as the ISS, there is sufficient tidal force for different ends to experience more than one millionth of 1g of force.

      Engineers and controllers need to remember this when they design and use reaction-control systems - because the station wants to "hang" perpendicularly to the ground, its most stable position.

      Likewise researchers need to know what force is experienced in different parts of the station to reduce (or control) the effect on their experiments.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  17. That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space Nutter's brains change shape just reading about space!

  18. Or maybe heart shape is distorted by gravity by erice · · Score: 1

    If hearts became more rounded through increased muscle mass then that could be evidence that hearts performance inefficiently in zero-g. Unfortunately, the teaser articles doesn't say that. Just changing shape could simply mean that heart development is normally distorted by gravity and without gravity, you naturally get a more rounded shape. A third possibility is that the longer shape is muscle mass needed to counteract gravity. Without gravity, there is no need so that extra muscle is lost. I suppose that could be a form of inefficiency since it means that heart is overbuilt for the task.

    I might be interesting to study the hearts of hearts of people who stay horizontal. Generally these with be comatose or otherwise bed-ridden without sitting up. Not a perfect analogy, though, since these patients are not getting any exercise while the astronauts are.

  19. *facepalm* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The heart doesn't need to fight against gravity, so it would only make sense for it to turn down, aka being less efficient.

  20. You know that picture is a pig heart, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a picture of a pig heart full of liquid gallium, on the left, and full of iohexol, on the right. Pig hearts, when imaged from the appropriate angle, have the classic heart shape. Human hearts are more like, well, trapezoidal.

  21. Lol, 9.4% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, because the metric for "spherieness" isn't at all subjective. Let's be sure not just to call it 9%, but let's even go further to call 9.4%.
     
    A real scientist working with such a small data set and such a subjective measurement would say something more along the lines of "roughly ten per cent" or "9% plus or minus 5 percent."
     
    It's like measuring your home electricity use down to 10 decimal places. Not only is it not accurate, but it doesn't make any sense to do that.

    1. Re:Lol, 9.4% by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      'Ah, because the metric for "spherieness" isn't at all subjective.'

      That's true. It's not really subjective. Here's a neat little illustration/calculator to help you with the concept.

      http://www.mathopenref.com/ell...

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  22. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The effects on the penis are documented.

    You will be happy with the results, the penis becomes engorged far easier and a bunch of other things resulting in a pleasant surprise to the kind of guy who thinks having his member be a little larger is going to resolve his performance issues.

    Likewise the woman's sex organs also fill with blood easier, making them more sensitive.

    This is all documented by NASA and other space agencies.

    The only thing I question is who they know some of the things they've documented without having a couple astronauts come back and say 'yea, we spanked it in space' or the married couple that went up on one of the shuttle missions really did have sex ... probably while the crew members watched since there really isn't anywhere to be alone. They insist its never happened though ...

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  23. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by niftydude · · Score: 2

    ...do any other, ahem, organs become more spherical? Because that could be a deal breaker.

    How so? I thought the general consensus was that girth is always preferable to length.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  24. "Performing less efficiently in zero gravity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If confirmed, THAT is a Game KILLER ! Ergo, No More NASA Human Flight !

    Sans

  25. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    That's assuming that girth increases to match length, instead of vice versa. That could be very, very bad.

  26. Re:Our space program by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    In the absence of gravity, isn't the equilibrium shape of any bag of mostly water spherical?

  27. Re:Our space program by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    The heart is a _very_ muscular organ, under a constant pumping action. I'd hardly call it an "equilibrium" state.

  28. Wait long enough and.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the entire astronaut becomes spherical.

    I for one welcome these boneless jelly worm overlords.

       

  29. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    do any other, ahem, organs become more spherical? Because that could be a deal breaker.

    There's a reason it's called Virgin Galactic.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  30. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the Chinese program have some mysterious "physical exercise" scheduled while the backup-male was on EVA?

  31. what about laying in Bed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does laying in bed cause your heart to change shape?? Or what about sitting too long??? This is an interesting observation with possible terrestrial parallels.

  32. Less efficient? by docwatson223 · · Score: 2

    ...or just efficient for zero g?

  33. Well.... by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    It depends on whether you are talking ONLY about inertial frames of reference. In the non-inertial frame of reference, there most certainly is a measurable centrifugal force. Everyone who keeps trotting out, "there is no such thing as centrifugal force, only centripetal force" has a fairly naive understanding of the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.

  34. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by Zaldarr · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't all this just be self-reported?

    --
    I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/
  35. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What he is saying is 109.4% true. The other guy is an idiot.

  36. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    ...do any other, ahem, organs become more spherical? Because that could be a deal breaker.

    Considering that you'd be booking on a trip with a company named Virgin, I don't see how that would be a problem. ;)

  37. Re:Before I buy that Virgin Galactic ticket, tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up and TAKE MY MONEY!!!

  38. Hey bigmouth bullshitter... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See you here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... you bigmouthed little nobody...

    APK

    P.S.=> Have the balls to show up there in the link above to reply to it (& NOT days later like you did, LONG after I left that thread!)

    NOW, in the link above, I simply tore you apart in it vs. your "so-called 'points'" that you "amended" bogusly, changing your parameters/constraints there!

    (& I am going to rip you a new asshole there YET AGAIN, publicly, for your BIG mouth you little shit - prepare to be utterly humiliated, publicly...)

    ... apk

  39. Hey bigmouth bullshit artist... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See you here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... you bigmouthed little nobody...

    APK

    P.S.=> Have the balls to show up there in the link above to reply to it (& NOT days later like you did, LONG after I left that thread!)

    NOW, in the link above, I simply tore you apart in it vs. your "so-called 'points'" that you "amended" bogusly, changing your parameters/constraints there!

    (& I am going to rip you a new asshole there YET AGAIN, publicly, for your BIG mouth you little shit - prepare to be utterly humiliated, publicly...)

    ... apk