Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

Palomar · 2002-06-08 09:38:01

I wrote: "Being a woman, I'd want a moon-phase simulator in my little living space (which could simply be a changeable computer screen-saver, programmed in sync with the moon's phases as they currently appear on Earth), to keep my body's natural rhythms in balance."

Phobos wrote: I think this would be a good topic for the civilization thread. I wasn't aware that women actually needed to see the moon to keep their rhythms in sync.

*I didn't mean to imply that this must be the case.

However, being that the moon does influence and effect the body's rhythms (especially a woman's), a female astronaut going to Mars will definitely be away from the effect the moon has on the Earth's tides and her body. Visual reinforcement would be a good idea, I think. And believe it or not, more babies *are* born during a full moon than at any other time of the month; this is an established medical fact.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-08 10:52:24

Tee hee.

You know, I personally wouldn't want to have too much imagery of home... it would make me very homesick.

Palomar · 2002-06-08 11:50:25

Josh wrote: "You know, I personally wouldn't want to have too much imagery of home... it would make me very homesick."

*Well, as I mentioned in the "Life Support" folder, under the "Food" subheading, I think it'd be nice to have quarters that are painted with scenes from Earth. Of course, not everyone might want that...it could be optional (if it's even feasible or approved by the overseers of the missions). I'd get bored to tears with just whites, tans, and beiges -- any monotonous color combination.

I don't want to sound like First Interior Decorator of Outer Space, but what about surroundings? Though I don't consider myself "a Trekkie/Trekker," I always thought the elegant, colorful, pretty Star Trek sets (in the original series) was much preferable to the Ugly Dark Oily Hardware-Store-Look which seems preferable in many sci-fi sets (movies or TV) in the past 20 years.

<shrug>

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Phobos · 2002-06-08 13:16:34

However, being that the moon does influence and effect the body's rhythms (especially a woman's), a female astronaut going to Mars will definitely be away from the effect the moon has on the Earth's tides and her body. Visual reinforcement would be a good idea, I think. And believe it or not, more babies *are* born during a full moon than at any other time of the month; this is an established medical fact.

Wow, my niece was born under a full moon a few months ago. I guess it wasn't coincidence. Come to think of it, no human that I know of has been completely seperated from the tidal forces of the Earth-Moon-Sun system. There's no telling what subtle ways the tidal forces affect our bodies. Has anyone done research or raised red flags about how the body might perform outside the tidal system we exist in?

I don't want to sound like First Interior Decorator of Outer Space, but what about surroundings? Though I don't consider myself "a Trekkie/Trekker," I always thought the elegant, colorful, pretty Star Trek sets (in the original series) was much preferable to the Ugly Dark Oily Hardware-Store-Look which seems preferable in many sci-fi sets (movies or TV) in the past 20 years.

I think that's why I don't watch much sci-fi, I can't stand those dark, overly metallic sets. Thinking that the future is going to look like that is depressing. The environment needs to be uplifting to the spirit not a destroyer of it.

Palomar · 2002-06-08 16:34:19

Phobos wrote: "Wow, my niece was born under a full moon a few months ago. I guess it wasn't coincidence."

*It might have been a coincidence; you never know

Congratulations on the new addition to your family! I love babies...

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-09 01:34:42

This is interesting stuff. I didn't know there were reliable statistics showing more births during a full moon.
It's always fascinated me that the human menstrual cycle time-period is so close to the Moon's orbital period. As Phobos, says, since no woman has ever been out of the Earth-Moon system, we don't really know what effect the lack of lunar gravity might have.
What happens to our dreams of a new human civilisation on Mars if all our women-folk's reproductive plumbing shuts down?!
???

Phobos · 2002-06-09 12:26:30

Congratulations on the new addition to your family! I love babies...

Thanks!

What happens to our dreams of a new human civilisation on Mars if all our women-folk's reproductive plumbing shuts down?!

Scary thought. I hope we never have to turn to things like artificial wombs, or even worse, cloning. Those things sound to unnatural and Orwellian to me. ???

Palomar · 2002-06-09 13:57:01

Shaun wrote: "This is interesting stuff. I didn't know there were reliable statistics showing more births during a full moon."

*I recall the first time I heard a woman say that more births occur during a full moon: I was working in a small hospital in my first job after business college, and she was a nurse (RN). I looked at her, laughed, and said "Oh yeah, right!" I honestly thought she was teasing me and two other gals in the office. She looked surprised, and reiterated this fact; other RN's chimed in that it was so, and a doctor as well.

"It's always fascinated me that the human menstrual cycle time-period is so close to the Moon's orbital period. As Phobos, says, since no woman has ever been out of the Earth-Moon system, we don't really know what effect the lack of lunar gravity might have."

*It's one of the first things which came to my mind when I began reading MS material.

"What happens to our dreams of a new human civilisation on Mars if all our women-folk's reproductive plumbing shuts down?!"

*Yes, that's a very good question. I don't think it'd be wise to treat it in some sort of "well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it" situation...if people are serious (like me) about humans one day settling on, then colonizing, Mars, this needs to be at least given a good amount of consideration now. Marsian colonization sans babies is a losing proposition.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Adrian · 2002-06-09 16:16:49

While not discounting the effects of the Moon on the menstrual cycle, I find it impossible to believe that the absence of its gravity will have any effect on women on Mars - it does create tides on Earth, but its gravity simply isn't strong enough to create any physiological effects in humans. There just aren't any sensory receptors in humans that have the resolution for that sort of thing.

That said, the Moon does indirectly create a lot of 28 day cues, the most obvious being its appearance in the sky and the tides. It is possible that humans respond to those cues. But I would like to know how significant the number of births during a full moon is - I can't imagine it's very significant. I remember reading a paper about how women's menstrual cycles tend to synchronise when they're in close proximity, e.g. nunnery, prison - clearly there are other factors involved.

It's probably worth investigating whether being in a submarine or in orbit has any effect on fertility. I suspect it doesn't, since that will have been one of the first things scientists would have tested female astronauts for, and if they found anything mildly interesting we'd have heard of it by now (unless there was a conspiracy, of course ) - but then the sample size is very small so nothing can be said for sure.

Sure, no woman has ever been out of cislunar space, but I would contend that being in orbit is far more different than being on a planet without a moon.

Adrian · 2002-06-09 16:20:53

I just did a bit of Googling on this subject and found this very pertinent page called Why is the lunar month exactly equal to the human female menstrual cycle?.

Well, it's not. Not really. Although the Lunar 'synodic month' from Full Moon to Full Moon is 29.53 days, the female menstrual cycle for humans can be anything from 26 days to 30 days, and some women are quite irregular. Just for comparison, here are the cycle lengths for some other mammals:
Chimpanzees......... 37 days
Humans.............. 26 - 30 days
Opossums............ 28 days
Macaque monkeys..... 24 - 26 days
Cows and mares...... 21 days
Sows................ 20 - 22 days
Sheep............... 16 - 17 days
Guinea Pigs......... 11 days
Rats and mice....... 5 days
There is no real correlation with the size of the mammal, the number of legs, the intelligence or brain size, or with the size of the eye. This means if there is a predictor, it is far more complex than some obvious external agent in the environment

Palomar · 2002-07-31 14:49:43

the menstrual cycle for...Rats and mice....... 5 days

*My hearty condolences to female rats and mice everywhere! Every 5 days? Poor dears. [Yes, I know they live much shorter lives by comparison to human females, etc., etc.! Just having some fun here]

Going back to women's health issues, I was just now transcribing a bone density report for a female patient. Women who have been pregnant and given birth experience much quicker bone loss/deterioration, particularly after menopause, then aging men do. Considering the lower gravity of Mars, I'm concerned that it may rapidly increase the severity of osteoporosis troubles in women...particularly if calcium sources and supplementations are not widely available. Osteoporosis has a very good chance of being a major health issue for women earlier in life on Mars, as well.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-31 20:53:35

I wonder if it would help if people attached weights to certain areas of their body when not out in the field. Maybe they could wear strap-on weights around their wrists, ankles, and waists. That might be a ridiculous idea but some variation of it might help.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-03 20:41:08

Hi Phobos!
I don't think your idea is ridiculous at all, at least in theory. As I'm sure most of us know, one of the recommendations for people prone to osteoporosis is weight-bearing exercise. Apparently bones "recognise" when they have more work to do, and accumulate calcium to improve their strength. (It's a sobering thought that our bodies might be smarter than we are!! )
In the absence of any better solution for humans on Mars with bone-density problems, the "strap-on weights" idea of yours might be just the low-tech quick-fix we need.
It might be good for our muscle tone and cardiovascular health too ... and may prove essential for people visiting Mars for a few months with the intention of going home to Earth's gravity well.

Palomar · 2002-08-03 23:01:14

Hi Phobos!
I don't think your idea is ridiculous at all, at least in theory. As I'm sure most of us know, one of the recommendations for people prone to osteoporosis is weight-bearing exercise. Apparently bones "recognise" when they have more work to do, and accumulate calcium to improve their strength.

*True. Exercising with weights is highly recommended for women, and it's never too late to start. I'm beginning a modest work-out with my husband's weights. Women most likely will have to exercise more strenously and consistently on Mars than their male counterparts, particularly women of child-bearing age and thereafter. And yes, the exercising does send signals to the body to build up more bone mass.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-04 21:42:37

If you lose bone mass in low gravity does it regenerate easily? Will astronauts who land on Earth after being on Mars have problems rebuilding their bone mass? Even though I didn't like the idea of spinning the Mars hab enroute to Mars because it adds complexity, I think Shaun is right, maybe we better set that sucker on the spin cycle.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-05 05:35:05

Ha-ha!! ... "set that sucker on the spin cycle" ...
I love it!
Thanks for the amusing terminology and thanks for casting your vote for artificial gravity.

Adrian · 2002-08-05 17:48:31

I like that phrase so much, I'm going to steal it temporarily for my sign

Phobos · 2002-08-05 19:38:21

I'm flattered!

Palomar · 2002-08-06 15:15:36

*Another consideration. This is just in from a doctor's report: "Sometimes too much calcium can actually cause you to loose more calcium in the urine than you should, and thereby put you at risk for kidney stones."

I think, and have thought for quite some time, that it'd be wise for the hab's little "sick bay" to have a lithotripsy device; it can break up stones with shock waves, and thus incisions are not required. The crushed particles of stone can then pass through the urinary stream.

Considering the astronauts will have to take some sort of calcium supplement in their diet [at least I'm pretty sure they should!], this is an unavoidable risk.

A lithotripsy device can also demolish gallstones, in the event the astronauts have not undergone cholecystectomy prior to the mission.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-06 19:33:40

Thanks Cindy for this little bit of wisdom. It's such an obviously sensible thing to do but I confess it never entered my head!
All this decalcifying of bones we've been discussing ... and the obvious question of where all this calcium is going hasn't arisen until now.
I'm with you, Cindy. A lithotripsy device sounds like a "must have" for any deep-space mission.

Good nursing .... there is no substitute!!

Palomar · 2002-08-09 15:21:40

*Way to go, Betty!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...._crow_2

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-09 16:12:25

Jumping in a little late here, being a male I'll never know for sure, however I don't believe that there is any correlation beyond coincidance in regards to human menstral cycles and the moon's orbital period. No more than it is a simple coincidance that an intelligent species evolved here at around the same time that the moon was far enough from the Earth so that it's disc appeared to exactly match the sun's disc thereby enabling perfect eclipses. Some other examples of "cosmic coincidances" are that we invented space telescopes just in time to see a once in a billion year cometary impact on Jupiter, or the invention of the common telescope during the presence of Saturn's rings, which I've heard will be gone in roughly 10,000 years due to gravitational instabilities. (keep in mind that 10,000 years is a fraction of a fraction of a blink in geologic time scales)
Also I'd like to point out that I am disgusted with the fact that in the whole time there has been manned spaceflight there has not been one formal experiment in artificial or "centrifugal" gravity. (I like to think that there has been one informal experiment, remember the astronaughts in skylab running around the circumferance of their cylindrical module)
Anywho, I heard a few months back, maybe a year by now, that the M.S. is planning to launch an experiment, with mice I believe, to test the effects of spinning a spacecraft to produce G forces. This experiment would also test the effects of Martian G, which is what they plan to spin it at, and the effects of mice that are born under such conditions.
The results of this experiment would be quite substantial to say the least. (and a FRIGGIN BONANZA!! to say the most {; ) please forgive the language)
This data can be used to predict the feasibility of huge rotating O'Neil colonies as well as predict the viability of humans on Mars.
By the way, what G level do you think would be best for a O'Neil colony, 1 or less? I think Mars G would be best as its not toooooo light and it doesn't require the whole colony to be spinning as fast as Terran G would. I hate to think of the structural stresses either way though. (I'm a planet guy m'self)

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

Phobos · 2002-08-09 19:55:28

By the way, what G level do you think would be best for a O'Neil colony, 1 or less? I think Mars G would be best as its not toooooo light and it doesn't require the whole colony to be spinning as fast as Terran G would. I hate to think of the structural stresses either way though. (I'm a planet guy m'self)
Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

If technical considerations allowed it I'd definately go with one G for an O'Neil colony at least for the first colonies. Anyways I share your sentiments about being a planet lubber. If we have the technology to create huge spinning habitats in space there's no reason why we couldn't create their analogs on a planetary surface. After all, on a planet or moon we wouldn't have to worry about the colony being ripped to shreds by the force of its rotation.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-08 09:38:01

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#2 2002-06-08 10:52:24

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#3 2002-06-08 11:50:25

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#4 2002-06-08 13:16:34

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#5 2002-06-08 16:34:19

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#6 2002-06-09 01:34:42

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#7 2002-06-09 12:26:30

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#8 2002-06-09 13:57:01

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#9 2002-06-09 16:16:49

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#10 2002-06-09 16:20:53

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#11 2002-07-31 14:49:43

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#12 2002-07-31 20:53:35

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#13 2002-08-03 20:41:08

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#14 2002-08-03 23:01:14

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#15 2002-08-04 21:42:37

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#16 2002-08-05 05:35:05

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#17 2002-08-05 17:48:31

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#18 2002-08-05 19:38:21

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#19 2002-08-06 15:15:36

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#20 2002-08-06 19:33:40

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#21 2002-08-09 15:21:40

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#22 2002-08-09 16:12:25

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

#23 2002-08-09 19:55:28

Re: Miscellanous - A "catch-all" folder

Board footer