Using Tupor to reduce mission constraints.

Void · 2016-08-31 18:35:08

http://www.space.com/33894-mars-coloniz … orpor.html

Somebody thinks so it appears.

SpaceNut · 2016-08-31 19:41:14

"We're not going to colonize Mars, or really settle it, sending four or six or eight people at a time every two years; we're going to have to send larger numbers," principal investigator John Bradford, president and chief operating officer of SpaceWorks Enterprises in Atlanta,

Gee they finally have awaken....duh....

With current rocket technology, a one-way trip to Mars takes six to nine months. John Bradford, and his team think there's a way to ease this journey — lowering astronauts' body temperatures by about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius). This would induce a "hypothermic stasis" that cuts crewmembers' metabolic rates by 50 to 70 percent. Researchers are working on ways to induce a hibernation-like torpor state in astronauts — a breakthrough they say would slash costs and make the long journey to the Red Planet safer and far less taxing for crewmembers. Astronauts in stasis also wouldn't need as much room to move around, Bradford added. Indeed, the required living space of the habitat that would help transport six crewmembers to Mars could be cut by a factor of 40, from about 12,350 cubic feet (350 cubic meters) to 280 cubic feet (8 cubic m), he said. The smaller habitat would weigh just 12.7 tons, compared to 40.6 tons for the "standard" one.

Since atrophy sets in from not moving and with or without artificial gravity provided for the term of going to mars, putting a crew into hibernation might not be such a good thing since the longer we are in this state the more harmful it is to the crew.

Void · 2016-08-31 19:50:46

Well the good news is they can fully test it incrementally on Earth, long before any mission of that type would go to Mars.

RobertDyck · 2016-08-31 21:31:36

Do I really have to mention rotation? Centrifugal force? Just spin the damn ship!

GW Johnson · 2016-09-01 08:50:17

I don't know whether artificial gravity would help with induced hibernation effects. The surrogate studies that use bed rest to simulate zero gee would seem to suggest that gravity has little benefit while a person is prone asleep. Whether that applies to a person in some sort of induced hibernation, well, who knows?

There is a danger here: this hibernation thing will take years to research and verify or deny, let alone turn into a mainstream spaceflight technology. Is that another excuse not to go as soon as we can?

I'm with RobertDyck: spin the damned ship and just get on with it. Let them ride awake in a bigger space. We already know how to do all those things.

Same sentiment applies to Musk's MCT when sending folks to Mars. Spin the thing! End over end works if your diameter is too short to be effective within spin rate limits. And it will be, even at that size.

To two significant figures, 56 m radius at 4 rpm produces one full gee at that radius, zero at the spin center. Gee is proportional to radius, and proportional to spin rate squared. Limits for long-term exposures are roughly 4 rpm for untrained, unacclimatized personnel, and roughly 8 rpm for well-trained, fully-acclimatized personnel. I suspect one bumps into blood pressure gradient-induced fainting problems at about 12 rpm.

Put the work stations out nearest the one-gee zones. Put the recreation and gym stuff in the intermediate zone. Put sleeping quarters in the low-to-zero gee zone, as gravity during sleep does not help anyway. That reduces the enforced exercise schedule, so that going to the gym is more about fun and less about regimentation.

As for volume, that effect may be exaggerated to make the case for hibernation to avoid building "battlestar galactica", which is a false dichotomy. According to the references I have found, the old Skylab had 117 m3 per person (crew = 3), the ISS started with 71 m3 per person (crew = 6), and today the ISS has 153 m3 per person (crew = 6). The smaller numbers seemed quite adequate for 6 months, and the larger worked for a year. Mir (and Salyut-6) had 45 m3/person (crew = 2), which seems a bit cramped, but one cosmonaut stayed there over a year.

If you use a nominal 130 m3 per person, then a crew of 6 needs a hab volume near 780 m3, a crew of 4 near 520 m3, etc. Thus I question the article's quote of a nominal 350 m3 craft for a crew of 6 if kept awake. That's only 58 m3 per person and looks like Mir or Salyut-6. Somebody still isn't doing their homework on habitation designs. Besides, the article only claims a reduction to 280 m3, and yet says that reduces mass by a factor near 3. Not very credible.

But it's not just volume per person alone, it's also critically how that volume is allocated that keeps people sane or drives them crazy. You need places to get together, and you need places to go and be alone. And you need significant space. It really is that simple.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-09-01 09:20:20)

Void · 2016-09-01 13:29:00

I think you noticed, that they will spin the ship, GW, so that's a partial victory for you, as you have wanted that all along.

Extended exposure to microgravity conditions has a variety of negative health effects, from muscle atrophy and bone weakening to vision problems. But torpid astronauts wouldn't have to worry about such issues, because their habitat would be rotated, generating artificial gravity on board, Bradford said.

I also wondered how much artificial gravity would be for the tupor mode. Still, I would think that it might reduce blood pooling in the upper body, and perhaps the damage to the eyes. If necessary, I imagine the beds could be tilted feet down to a degree to assist in this as might be beneficial.

The awake crew can exercise if they are not tending the ship and crew, my impression is the awake crew will be rotated.

For muscle mass, I wonder if steroids could be considered to a degree prior to the mission, and even on the mission. Use of steroids may present some psychological problems however, but perhaps it can be managed since most of the passengers would be in tupor.

As for calcium loss, it is possible that that will be solved, medically. Some suspicion is being pointed at the role of salt in the diet.

I have thought about muscle stimulation during tupor, but of course even if that could work, it adds complication, and consumes Oxygen and other body chemicals, and might overload the organs in some way during tupor. So, I am very shy about that one.

But for bone stressing, perhaps some very light motorized controlled harness system could apply repetitive stressing to the bones during tupor. They are all tupored out, so they are not likely to notice.

Then there is bed sores, which the crew can attend to, but I believe that there in a 1 gee field, a good treatment is a thin bubble sheet under the body, which inflates and deflates. Perhaps that same action could be used pneumatically to stress the bones with some kind of harness.

I am inclined to think that this avenue of research should be explored, since it could have benefits to medical patients on Earth as well.

And if they manage to pull it off, many more people can be moved around in space for various purposes than otherwise.

Last edited by Void (2016-09-01 13:45:07)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-08-31 18:35:08

Using Tupor to reduce mission constraints.

#2 2016-08-31 19:41:14

Re: Using Tupor to reduce mission constraints.

#3 2016-08-31 19:50:46

Re: Using Tupor to reduce mission constraints.

#4 2016-08-31 21:31:36

Re: Using Tupor to reduce mission constraints.

#5 2016-09-01 08:50:17

Re: Using Tupor to reduce mission constraints.

#6 2016-09-01 13:29:00

Re: Using Tupor to reduce mission constraints.

Board footer