Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

Quaoar · 2018-06-29 06:33:39

louis wrote:

That's exercise in zero G. Exercise in 1G weighted suits on Mars will I am sure lead to bone and muscle recovery...because that's what happens when astronauts return to Earth. So the way I see it, your risk factor is the six months in zero G travelling each way.

That's your opinion, but not a fact. Please don't confuse opinion with fact. The only real fact is that we still don't know.
It may be or may be not. So if you don't want to risk, you have to add a new centrifugal module to the ISS and spend another 10-15 years studying the effects of 3.9 G plus weighted suits on human body, before performing your mission. But in the end, probably the orbit-to-orbit modular spinning ship will cost less.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-29 06:46:01)

louis · 2018-06-29 10:01:44

I didn't state it was a fact, I stated "I was sure". All the evidence we have suggests that if you take away resistance exercise you get bone and muscle loss, whether you're lying in bed or in space. All the evidence suggests that people regain bone and muscle in full 1G back on Earth after a period of zero G. I am struggling to think of the mechanism by which the pioneers would not regain bone and muscle on Mars in 0.38 G and with weighted suits to aid recovery. To believe that people would not regain bone and muscle seems to me a form of superstition.

Yes, it's true we don't know for sure 100% because we haven't done it yet, but that's like saying I don't know if I walk off a cliff whether or not I will fly because I haven't tried it yet. We know what happens if you walk off a cliff and we know what happens if you have resistant exercise in a 1G environment after a long period of zero G.

Quaoar wrote:

louis wrote:
That's exercise in zero G. Exercise in 1G weighted suits on Mars will I am sure lead to bone and muscle recovery...because that's what happens when astronauts return to Earth. So the way I see it, your risk factor is the six months in zero G travelling each way.
That's your opinion, but not a fact. Please don't confuse opinion with fact. The only real fact is that we still don't know.
It may be or may be not. So if you don't want to risk, you have to add a new centrifugal module to the ISS and spend another 10-15 years studying the effects of 3.9 G plus weighted suits on human body, before performing your mission. But in the end, probably the orbit-to-orbit modular spinning ship will cost less.

SpaceNut · 2018-06-29 11:32:43

Analog missions to the moon will give us another point on the gravity effects to man for what we need for artifical gravity and a comporable line for the effects if we are on mars for extended times as well.

Keep batteries and reactor on the mars cargo lander as you can control the enviroment for both and give the isolation required for radiation and heating or cooling for both once cargo is off loaded.

Agreeds Lious "Mission One also has to think about Missions Two and Three - if this is to be a colonisation effort" balanced with science, exploration, insitu oxygen, food production, insitu water processing and leaving things in operation for the next crews arrival.

Quaoar · 2018-06-29 11:34:05

louis wrote:

I didn't state it was a fact, I stated "I was sure". All the evidence we have suggests that if you take away resistance exercise you get bone and muscle loss, whether you're lying in bed or in space. All the evidence suggests that people regain bone and muscle in full 1G back on Earth after a period of zero G. I am struggling to think of the mechanism by which the pioneers would not regain bone and muscle on Mars in 0.38 G and with weighted suits to aid recovery. To believe that people would not regain bone and muscle seems to me a form of superstition.

It seems your approach might be too simplistic. I don't know if you have or not a background of study in biology, but the mechanism is more complex than you think. It's not only a mechanic-load issue, but also an epigenetic one. Recent studies suggest that the whole cytoskeleton (the network of interlinking filaments and tubules inside the cells) might act as a gravity receptor, triggering activation and deactivation of many gene pathways, which leads to the microgravity body modification. This is the reason for why Mars 3.9 gee plus weighted suit might not be enough to mimic 1 G Earth-gravity on a cellular level.

There are a lot of research on the topic (just type "cytoskeleton and microgravity" on google) but we are still at the beginning.
At the end of this century, if humanity is wise enough to not self-destruct, there will be surely available fantastic gene-targeted therapies to perfect counteract microgravity-disease. But if you want to do your Mars mission in the next 10-15 years, I repeat, you have nothing but to spin your ship.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-29 13:35:02)

Terraformer · 2018-06-29 11:37:27

I wonder if a spring loaded harness could replicate the impact of running in gravity? Pushing down on the shoulders and spine, thus loading most of the skeleton. Possibly it could be trialled on Earth using bed rest and horizontal exercise.

SpaceNut · 2018-06-29 11:41:48

Sort of what a spandex MCP space suit would be doing as it compresses the persons body. This could be tried on the ISS to prove out even at lessor levels of compression.

Terraformer · 2018-06-29 12:44:21

Well, there's already something that does that - Adeli suit. But I'm imagining something that provides the same sort of impact on the bones that they experience under gravity, which seems to be connected to bone loss. We know that bone loss is increased by bed rest, and conversely that exercise increases bone density.

Quaoar, do you have any links to read more about that? It's surprising that the body has a way to detect and respond to differing gravity levels. Or is it effected by loading - if an organism lives in water, do they experience the same changes?

Quaoar · 2018-06-29 13:12:08

Terraformer wrote:

Quaoar, do you have any links to read more about that? It's surprising that the body has a way to detect and respond to differing gravity levels. Or is it effected by loading - if an organism lives in water, do they experience the same changes?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat … /1962.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16479487

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5007526/

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20043

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.co … s.1378.034

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 6501000236

https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1096/ … ode=fasebj

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1 … alCode=scd

Just as an example...

Terraformer wrote:

if an organism lives in water, do they experience the same changes?

Even fishes experience bone loss in microgravity

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14172

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-29 13:22:23)

kbd512 · 2018-06-29 16:06:38

Louis,

No power generation technology is totally reliable. The widespread use of Lithium-Ion batteries has demonstrated that despite the best efforts of engineers, even a device with no moving parts can malfunction. Regarding the wiring, if you're that worried about it, then you can always put the solar panels on top of your habitat so no wires are sitting on the ground and batteries inside that habitat that don't outgas or explode. That should minimize the complexity and losses. Any real power generating station needs to be 5km+ away from all other equipment. Wires can be marked with flags to let people in rovers know that they need to go around.

louis · 2018-06-29 16:39:36

I think what you are referencing there, cytoskeleton and microgravity, is a separate issue. Clearly in some respects we won't be getting the full Earthbound 1G effect by wearing a weighted suit on Mars at the cellular level. There does possibly seem to be an effect on the immune response and it affects the heart muscle and other internal organs perhaps, where they aren't themselves weight-bearing like the skeleton or exterior muscles.

But the evidence is that even in zero G exercise has a beneficial effect in terms of bone and muscle loss, and that has been replicated many, many times. All the evidence points to there being a homeostatic response in the body - workload stress on muscles and bone leads to build up of bone and muscle. I don't think it has anything to do with microtubules or whatever, otherwise it wouldn't work in zero G. Also, if our bone and muscle mass was dependent on gravity effects, it would flatline at a particular level on Earth. The mass varies according to workload.

Quaoar wrote:

louis wrote:
I didn't state it was a fact, I stated "I was sure". All the evidence we have suggests that if you take away resistance exercise you get bone and muscle loss, whether you're lying in bed or in space. All the evidence suggests that people regain bone and muscle in full 1G back on Earth after a period of zero G. I am struggling to think of the mechanism by which the pioneers would not regain bone and muscle on Mars in 0.38 G and with weighted suits to aid recovery. To believe that people would not regain bone and muscle seems to me a form of superstition.
It seems your approach might be too simplistic. I don't know if you have or not a background of study in biology, but the mechanism is more complex than you think. It's not only a mechanic-load issue, but also an epigenetic one. Recent studies suggest that the whole cytoskeleton (the network of interlinking filaments and tubules inside the cells) might act as a gravity receptor, triggering activation and deactivation of many gene pathways, which leads to the microgravity body modification. This is the reason for why Mars 3.9 gee plus weighted suit might not be enough to mimic 1 G Earth-gravity on a cellular level.

There are a lot of research on the topic (just type "cytoskeleton and microgravity" on google) but we are still at the beginning.
At the end of this century, if humanity is wise enough to not self-destruct, there will be surely available fantastic gene-targeted therapies to perfect counteract microgravity-disease. But if you want to do your Mars mission in the next 10-15 years, I repeat, you have nothing but to spin your ship.

Quaoar · 2018-06-29 17:24:26

louis wrote:

The mass varies according to workload.

Here on the Earth where, the correct gene pathways are active and the mitochondrial function is not impaired. In microgravity even the mitochondria don't work as well as on in a full gee gravity, and the cellular metabolism is altered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9475870

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15612-1

Nobody says exercise is not useful, but in microgravity is not enough, and the issue is far more complex than you think. And even the fact that the crew, after a Mars mission without artificial gravity, can survive a 12-15 gee (or more) direct entry from TEI is not a foregone conclusion.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-29 17:33:44)

louis · 2018-06-29 17:38:27

Well obviously in zero G it's not "enough" primarily because in zero G you can't mimic the way the downward weight force of the head and torso impact on the bones and muscles pelvis and legs*. But it seems clear to me you can do that on Mars in 0.38 G and with added weights, probably located on the head, shoulders and as a midriff belt.

Gravitational effects at a molecular/cellular level are a red herring here I think because the body reacts to workload not gravitation. If that were not the case, then there would be no bone-muscle loss when you have constant bed rest - you're getting the full 1G gravitational load, your mitochondria are in tip top condition, but you still lose bone and muscle.

* Actually you'd probably get dramatic results in zero G if you had a vice machine where the astronaut had to step into it and exert pressure in the legs and pelvis to prevent themselves being crushed by the vice. But I doubt that would be a very ethical exercise device!

Quaoar wrote:

louis wrote:
The mass varies according to workload.
On the Earth where the mitochondrial function is not impaired. The mitochondria are the energy source of our cells: in microgravity mitochondria don't work as well as on in a full gee gravity, and the cellular metabolism is altered.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9475870
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15612-1
Nobody says exercise is not useful, but in microgravity is not enough, and the issue is far more complex than you think. And even the fact that the crew, after a Mars mission without artificial gravity, can survive a 12-15 gee direct entry from TEI is not a foregone conclusion.

Last edited by louis (2018-06-29 17:39:42)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-29 18:05:04

Here's How Astronauts Exercise On Board The ISS

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstuden … Space.html

In microgravity, body fluids are moved around. Fluids such as plasma are lost throughout the body. Plasma is where red blood cells live. Less plasma means there is less blood to carry oxygen to the rest of the body. Exercise, however, has been shown to increase the amount of plasma in the body. Astronauts who exercise make more red blood cells.
Microgravity also brings about another change in something called "orthostatic intolerance," Hagan said. "When you lie down, stand up quickly, and feel light-headed, that's orthostatic intolerance," he said. "Your body tries to stop this from happening. It does so by increasing its heart rate and blood pressure to keep more blood returning to your heart. If you can't do that, you'll pass out. With no gravity and less blood volume, astronauts are more prone to fainting. Again, exercise can help increase blood volume and circulation. That helps prevent fainting.
Three Main Exercises
In space, astronauts use three pieces of exercise equipment. Each piece does something different. The exercise equipment is put on raised platforms to reduce the noise the machines make.
Cycle Ergometer: This is like a bicycle, and the main activity is pedaling. It is used to measure fitness in space because it's easy to check heart rate and how much work is being done.
Male astronaut exercising with harness on shoulders.

Image to right: Astronaut Ed Lu uses the RED equipment on the Space Station in 2003. Credit: NASA
Treadmill: Walking or jogging on the treadmill is like walking on Earth. Walking is the single most important way to keep bones and muscles healthy. Because the lack of gravity tends to make people float, harnesses are attached to the astronauts to hold them to the walking surface.
Resistance Exercise Device (RED): The RED looks like weight-lifting machines you may see on television. To use it, astronauts pull and twist stretchy rubber-band-like cords attached to pulleys. The RED can be used for a total body workout. From squats and bending exercises for the legs, to arm exercises and heel raises, astronauts can do them all on the RED.

How Do Astronauts Exercise in Space?

of course its not all exercise being done on the ISS
ISS Experiment Finds Osteoporosis Drugs Counteract Bone Loss

Quora Aug 24, 2017,
Why Do Astronauts Lose Bone Mass In Space?

Quaoar · 2018-06-29 18:06:27

louis wrote:

Gravitational effects at a molecular/cellular level are a red herring here I think because the body reacts to workload not gravitation. If that were not the case, then there would be no bone-muscle loss when you have constant bed rest - you're getting the full 1G gravitational load, your mitochondria are in tip top condition, but you still lose bone and muscle.

Bodies need both: gravity and exercise. It's even a fact that despite 2 h/day of intense exercise ISS astronaut lose muscular and bone mass. And that's the reason for why the aforementioned studies, performed by highly qualified scientists, that you call "red herrings", are instead a very interesting and promising line of research.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-29 18:08:49)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-29 18:32:59

This is where we lose bone mass:

main-qimg-9746210186f10a59122fc0f1fe393e81

louis · 2018-06-29 19:37:33

Great diagram! I think it points to the workload factor. When were are in a 1G environment essentially everything from the pelvis down is keeping everything from the pelvis up in position.

SpaceNut wrote:

This is where we lose bone mass:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9 … f1fe393e81

louis · 2018-06-29 19:41:52

"Exercise" is a bit of a misnomer. The body needs the workload of carrying the torso. It will get that when on Mars in a weighted suit. There is no evidence that a gravity-mitochondrial system is crucial in bone/muscle loss or gain. As I said previously, if it were then we could expect people to maintain bone and muscle during bed rest in a 1G environment.

Quaoar wrote:

louis wrote:
Gravitational effects at a molecular/cellular level are a red herring here I think because the body reacts to workload not gravitation. If that were not the case, then there would be no bone-muscle loss when you have constant bed rest - you're getting the full 1G gravitational load, your mitochondria are in tip top condition, but you still lose bone and muscle.
Bodies need both: gravity and exercise. It's even a fact that despite 2 h/day of intense exercise ISS astronaut lose muscular and bone mass. And that's the reason for why the aforementioned studies, performed by highly qualified scientists, that you call "red herrings", are instead a very interesting and promising line of research.

Quaoar · 2018-06-30 04:43:27

louis wrote:

"Exercise" is a bit of a misnomer. The body needs the workload of carrying the torso. It will get that when on Mars in a weighted suit. There is no evidence that a gravity-mitochondrial system is crucial in bone/muscle loss or gain. As I said previously, if it were then we could expect people to maintain bone and muscle during bed rest in a 1G environment.

Gravity is not enough without workload and workload is not enough without gravity. Bodies need both. In fact ISS astronauts lose bone mass despite workload, less than what they would lose without it, but still they have a loss.

The study on microgravity alteration on a cellular level are just at the beginning: we know very little about this issue, it's too early to say which role it might play, and while we are posting, many fine scientist are researching to give an answer to this question. But reasoning about human physiology from a mechanical-only point of view seems like a watchmaker who pretend to apply his knowledge to a silicon CPU.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-30 05:48:11)

Terraformer · 2018-06-30 04:56:26

That centrifuge module would have come in real handy... any chance we can fly one up on a Falcon rocket?

Quaoar · 2018-06-30 05:40:32

Terraformer wrote:

That centrifuge module would have come in real handy... any chance we can fly one up on a Falcon rocket?

It must be reprojected as inflatable to be stored in the trunk of a Dragon capsule.

I think it can be done in three pieces and three missions: one for the central hub with the electric engine and the docking port and the other two for the arms. Two inflatable arms of about 22 meters, rotating at 4 RMP can produce an artificial gravity of 0.4 gee, simulating Mars surface gravity.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-30 05:46:31)

Terraformer · 2018-06-30 05:47:46

Or we could finish the Mars Gravity Biosatellite. That should fit in the trunk?

Quaoar · 2018-06-30 06:13:49

Terraformer wrote:

Or we could finish the Mars Gravity Biosatellite. That should fit in the trunk?

Mice would have been a good model for starting, and we would surely have gained more knowledge on the issue. But it was cancelled, like almost all that might have been of some interest for a real Mars mission. I think that NASA guys have really no intention to go everywhere but nowhere.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-30 06:15:14)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-30 10:43:48

So far all that we have sent up have been healthy people with no back issues, But a bit of data could also be gotten from those with back issues to see what benefits can be obtained with the lesser gravity loading, bone supplements and exercise as I know that back alignments are impacted by gravities loading effect, such things as prolapsed disks, vertibration compression and other such need to be studied.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-05-29 20:06:38

More big rockets coming, from Russia and China?
space programs to share space flight components

Russia’s space authority will incorporate a Chinese superheavy launcher into its home-grown manned spacecraft for future moon-landing missions, a senior Russian official said.

Alexander Bloshenko, executive director of the state-backed space agency Roscosmos, said that in the future China and Russia would design technical procedures for their respective spacecraft to allow integration in future space missions.
https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/05/26 … e-programs
“Both sides have agreed to incorporate Russia’s superheavy rocket with China’s human space flight as well as the other way round – incorporate China’s superheavy rocket with Russia’s manned carriers,” he said on Monday, according to Russian state-owned news agency Sputnik. China has not commented on the planned space cooperation with Russia.

When will the first baby be born in space?
https://thenextweb.com/news/when-will-t … yndication
'A permanent Moon colony could become a reality in a few decades. Human babies in space might follow soon after.'

Hibernation like Scifi and Deep Space Travel?
https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/25/sle … urney-to-m
Manned missions to Mars have taken a step closer thanks to hibernating zebrafish

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-11-28 15:11:45

Astronaut Chris Hadfield on life in space – podcast

https://www.theguardian.com/science/aud … ce-podcast

Some news came out this year on the long duration experiment from Russia, seems like Russia Starts Work on Bion-M Biosatellite
https://tass.com/science/1259627

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-11-28 15:14:03)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2018-06-29 06:33:39

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#77 2018-06-29 10:01:44

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#78 2018-06-29 11:32:43

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#79 2018-06-29 11:34:05

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#80 2018-06-29 11:37:27

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#81 2018-06-29 11:41:48

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#82 2018-06-29 12:44:21

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#83 2018-06-29 13:12:08

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#84 2018-06-29 16:06:38

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#85 2018-06-29 16:39:36

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#86 2018-06-29 17:24:26

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#87 2018-06-29 17:38:27

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#88 2018-06-29 18:05:04

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#89 2018-06-29 18:06:27

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#90 2018-06-29 18:32:59

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#91 2018-06-29 19:37:33

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#92 2018-06-29 19:41:52

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#93 2018-06-30 04:43:27

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#94 2018-06-30 04:56:26

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#95 2018-06-30 05:40:32

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#96 2018-06-30 05:47:46

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#97 2018-06-30 06:13:49

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#98 2018-06-30 10:43:48

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#99 2021-05-29 20:06:38

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

#100 2021-11-28 15:11:45

Re: Chris Hadfield Say SpaceX & NASA Rockets Won't Go To Mars

Board footer