Talk-Polywell.org

"Antibody Production Gets Confused During Long-Term Spaceflight

ScienceDaily (May 19, 2011) — The trip to Mars just got a little more difficult now that French researchers have discovered that antibodies used to fight off disease might become seriously compromised during long-term space flight. In a new report published online in the FASEB Journal, the scientists show that antibodies produced in space are less effective than those produced on terra firma. The reduced effectiveness of antibodies makes astronauts more susceptible to illness, while increasing the danger posed by bacteria and viruses likely to coexist with wayfaring astronauts."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113014.htm

We do not need the exploration and inhabitation of the Solar System to become harder. It is looking more likely we must manufacture some gravity most of the time or find another work-around.

i've figured that all you really need are a few hours a day. Any mass sensitive ship design would include a small centrifuge. Spending a ten hour rest period in the 'fuge every day would include sleep, paperwork, and some exercise under simulated gravity. It would be preferred to have it shielded more than the rest of the ship too.

Even once every few days would probably solve alot of the health problems you'd encounter. You'd eventually get a larger "deck" that's spinning, so you're spending most of your time in gravity, but for the first ships, you don't need that much.

You have figures? What are they?

I forget sometimes that words like "figure" have a technical term.

I get the impression that for those who worry about such things, it's well established that microgravity is a problem in the long term, and that regular doses of simulated gravity would help a lot. Putting the entire ship, especially when you expect a reasonable sized rocket to launch the ship monolithically, or at least in a very few parts, under spin or whatever isn't practical from a mass perspective, but a small area would be reasonable.

If astronauts show serious degradation after a year or so(Skylab data IIRC), then putting them under spin for 10/24 would extend the time taken to reach that point by a similar factor. 10/24 is .42, so it would take 1.2 years(?) to get the same affect if it can be calculated that way. If the process is non-linear, you might get even better results.

What they really mean is "long term free fall" - because they can't imagine a powered flight to Mars.

They should bring back NERVA, the 90 day trip with a fission rocket would actually reduce the amount of radiation exposure, unless polywell works and they can use VASIMR.

WizWom wrote:What they really mean is "long term free fall" - because they can't imagine a powered flight to Mars.

Or doing most of the trip under spin gravity. Let's face it. A martian ship is not going to be launched in one go from Earth - discounting orion - so if it's going to be modular, you might as well build it properly so it doesn't kill the crew.

NERVA was an interesting test, but there are better nuclear concepts out there. Let's not bring back the only nuclear engine we can remember the name of because it's the only one we can remember the name of.

kunkmiester wrote:i've figured that all you really need are a few hours a day. Any mass sensitive ship design would include a small centrifuge.

I dont think Zubrin´s Mars Direct plan includes centrifugues, but I might be wrong.

AcesHigh wrote:

kunkmiester wrote:i've figured that all you really need are a few hours a day. Any mass sensitive ship design would include a small centrifuge.

I dont think Zubrin´s Mars Direct plan includes centrifugues, but I might be wrong.

IIRC, two habs connected by a tether were considered. Hard to check since the Encyclopedia Astronautica is down.

djolds1 wrote:IIRC, two habs connected by a tether were considered. Hard to check since the Encyclopedia Astronautica is down.

Yes it was 2 habs connected by a tether, I rember it also.