Atlantis astronaut faints twice post flight....

johns805 · Sep 23, 2006

Hi: ....It's a little scary to see this....Astronaut Stepfanyshyn-Piper, presumably in the best shape a woman can be at her age, fainted twice at a post flight news conference due to gravity adjustment....The CNN article along with the video clip is at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/09/22/shuttle.astronaut.ap/index.html If this is a preliminary sign of a recurring condition among those who take longer and vigorous space flights, I'd be for whatever it takes to develop artificial gravity as well as hibernation technology....I wonder in what shape those returning to Earth from Mars would be without the latter...I think NASA ought to look at this seriously....Best Regards! JBK Yes! You can turn me on! I'm on the radio! Surf City Sounds Plus: http://www.Live365.com/stations/johns805

erioladastra · Sep 23, 2006

It is not a matter of being in shape. It is hard on the body, especially doing space walks. No matter how good you are you need to take it easy after you come back - something type-As are not very good at with all that is going on after a mission.

qso1 · Sep 23, 2006

johns805: Hi: ....It's a little scary to see this....Astronaut Stepfanyshyn-Piper, presumably in the best shape a woman can be at her age... Me: Individual physiologies may vary...Shannon Lucid spent much longer time aboard the Mir station and upon returning to earth, made it a point to show she could handle spaceflight better than many Cosmonauts could. Ultimately it would be beneficial to incorporate gravity generation of some kind into future spacecraft but the cost of such systems will be a determining factor as to whether they are adapted or not. As for mars missions, rest assured NASA will look into possibilities. If for no other reason, at mars arrival, the lander crew will have to be in optimal physical shape to endure G forces during landing, and adapting to gravity for surface activity even thought the gravity on mars is 38% that of Earths. Designing a mars craft with artificial G would very likely be more expensive than a zero G craft with a crew that is predisposed to working out. Such a crew would utilize the onboard workout capabilities provided in a zero G designed mars craft. OTOH, if continued space station research and data shows that an artificial gravity design is essential to long term crew survival, thats what will come about costs permitting. If cost is an issue, most likely a mars mission would be put off until the issues are resolved in favor of going. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

JonClarke · Sep 23, 2006

She hasn't spent much time in space at all by any measure, this is her first flight and it was only 12 days. At least a dozen people have aquired clocked up a year or more. Her unpleasant experience has no relevance at all for Mars missions. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

para3 · Sep 23, 2006

Even zero gravity flights, though I thoroughly enjoy them, is hard on the body. After 4 of these flights, I notice it was having some affect on my body, though I'm planning on taking another one before I get too old. As long as I'm feeling good and I pass my physicals which I take upon myself, I will be able to do this even well into my 70's. Anyhow, I presented an idea to NASA about artificial gravity and the bums wouldn't even review it. I did a number of tests on it and I guarantee it would be much better than any exercise equipment aboard the shuttle or even the ISS. This is just another example of NASA not listening to anyone except themselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .....Shuttle me up before I get tooooooooo old and feeble.....---Happiness is winning a huge lottery--- </div>

frodo1008 · Sep 23, 2006

I am sorry Jon, but it has every relevance towards a Mars mission! There is a tendency on these boards among those that are very anxious to be able to live to see a Mars mission to relegate the problems involved to a back burner (I am not saying this necessarily about you, but a quite large segment of the people here). I both have in my own space library, and have read several times through Dr. Robert Zubrin’s excellent books “The Case for Mars” and "Entering Space”. He is both an excellent writer and a very good engineer. His Idea of living off the atmosphere of Mars, and using it to generate the propellants for a return trip are truly ground breaking ideas! However, his estimates for what it is going to take to get people to Mars to do useful exploration are way, way off, in both the problems involved and the cost involved! As we will not be ready with nuclear fast propulsion for a long time into the future for both the reasons of practical technology, and the even more important reason of political feasibility. While I fully support nuclear work itself I realize that there is far too much opposition to this kind of thing from a political viewpoint to make it practical within the lifetimes of most of the people on these boards at this time. So that leaves us with the much slower chemical propulsion, which for a journey as long as one to Mars makes the trip at the very least several months long. I don’t really care how much zero gravity physical workouts such people will get, we now have enough knowledge from long duration zero gravity space station stays by people that it is highly improbable that a zero gravity trip is a practical possibility for going to Mars. A point that even Dr, Zubrin concedes to in his books! So some form of rotational artificial gravity is going to be essential for such a trip, at least at the 0.38 g’s of Mars itself. Then, there is the far more dangerous exposure to the Mars travelers for such

baktothemoon · Sep 23, 2006

>Even zero gravity flights, though I thoroughly enjoy them, is hard on the body. After 4 of these flights, I notice it was having some affect on my body, though I'm planning on taking another one before I get too old. As long as I'm feeling good and I pass my physicals which I take upon myself, I will be able to do this even well into my 70's. Whoa, what do you mean?

askold · Sep 23, 2006

Is she used to public speaking? Many people who don't often speak in public are terrified of addressing a crowd. Maybe it was just public speaking jitters.

qso1 · Sep 23, 2006

Thats always a possibility, and one we probably won't know the answer to unless her actual medical history comes to light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

darkenfast · Sep 23, 2006

Yes, long-term zero-g exposure is relevant to a Mars mission. But no, the experience of this astronaut probably is not. Other posters have pointed out the various aspects of this mission that probably caused the fainting (which I understand has happened to others), but short-flight problems such as this are not the same issues that will affect the crew of a Mars mission.

frodo1008 · Sep 23, 2006

Yes the problems of such long duration flight are far worse, but if there are such problems with even short duration flights.......

frodo1008 · Sep 23, 2006

Welcome to the discussion. That was indeed a very perceptive and interesting viewpoint. Sometimes I think that NASA expects far too much of its astronauts in the way of public relations. But then working for congress does not give NASA much political manuevering room either! Perhaps the pure private efforts will have less problems in this regards, but then they have the additional problem of sharehoders that may want profits! Oh well, can't have everything I guess!

mattblack · Sep 23, 2006

Wonderful as she is, Heidi is only human! It may not be jitters: She just may have been a bit dehydrated with some potassium and other basic salt depletion. Also, we don't know how hot it was in that room or whether Heidi had a good night's sleep or not, still re-adjusting to 1-g. I once felt like fainting when I was performing in a play. I bet my line delivery was very dry and stilted!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

JonClarke · Sep 23, 2006

I am sorry ro frodo, with all due respect to your experience, I think you are wrong on all points. Furthermore none of them are relevant to the issue of the thread, which Stepfanyshyn-Piper's collapse or the assertion is is relevant into future Mars missions. The point you raised are worth discussing, IMHPO,so why don't you do so in another post? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

mattblack · Sep 23, 2006

Not enough research on the human body doing such a long mission has been done: This is where ISS can help. 1): Launch a crew to a six month mission to ISS and bring them back. 2): RE-LAUNCH them to ISS six months later for another six month stay then return. #-- Check their physical status. 3): Check the physical condition of an Astronaut team undertaking a six month stay at a lunar outpost. Then, re-launch them again immediately for a six month stay at ISS before again returning them to Earth. This is the closest we could get to simulating a multiple-launch, long duration zero & low gravity Mars mission without actually SENDING them to Mars. Under such a scenario, with varying environments and radiation exposures, we could get a good look at just how strenuous such an undertaking is on the human body and mind. But we'd still maintain the capability to get the crew home in hours from ISS or 3-4 days from the Moon if one of them collapses. I'd say that especially the early long-duration Lunar and Mars mission crews should have a Medical Doctor Astronaut as standard practice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

para3 · Sep 23, 2006

>Whoa, what do you mean? Whoa, what do you mean? I don't know how to explain it any other way. Any suggestions? Let's face it-I'm crazy about zero gravity flights and can't get enough of that weird feeling called weightlessness. It feels so whacky, because I lose all of my senses like up and down for instance and my face gets all puffy and strange. Unfortunately I don't have the right stuff and I'm not filthy rich like Tito and some of them. Happiness is winning a billion bucks. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .....Shuttle me up before I get tooooooooo old and feeble.....---Happiness is winning a huge lottery--- </div>

JonClarke · Sep 23, 2006

1 & 2 have been done, near enough. Valeri Ryumin flew 175 days in space on in Salyut 6 (Soyuz 32 & 34) from February 25-June 13 1979, followed by 233 on the ground and then spent 185 days back on Salyut 6 (April 9-October 11 1980). He also flew days in Soyuz 25 and 9 days on STS 91, for a total of 371 mission days. The requires of scheduling and mission specific training have precluded other similar misons, but it would be interesting to repeat it, and do the lunar equivalent you mention. Whether or not a doctor is worth their weight on a Mars mission is a well debated issue! I suspect politically one would be included. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

mithridates · Sep 23, 2006

Certainly not. Happiness is closer to the ambition that drives a person to work hard enough to make a billion bucks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

scottb50 · Sep 24, 2006

Mars is not a suicide mission, the technology is available to protect crew members from radiation hazards, if that really proves to be a true issue. Nuclear fast propulsion is not needed and we don't have to depend on living off the land at Mars. At some point it would be great to live off Mars resources, but in the beginning it's like a camping trip, you might be able to drink from the stream, but it's probably better to take water than get the runs. There are no show stopping reasons, other than political and financial we couldn't go to Mars tomorrow. We have sent a number of vehicles there already, none have disappeared into a void, the same laws of physics and chemistry seem to be universal. There is no physical reason we can't go to Mars other than the inherent risks of getting to Space to begin with and dealing with the environment there. It's not magic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

frodo1008 · Sep 24, 2006

I don't think that I can explain anymore than I already have, many don't seem to understand, and some others don't want to. Fine with me, I really don't care that much. I am however glad that the people that really count (the chief of whom is Dr. Griffin) seem to have their priorities straight at this time. Also, even the most enthusiastic of Mars first supporters is going to have to admit that such a trip is going to cost at the very least some $100 billion. After all if that is the cost of just going back to the moon, then logic must dictate that going on to Mars is going to cost at least as much, and quite probably much more! No private concern has anywhere near that much funding available, nor will have for a very long time (private efforts ARE driven by the profit motive, and what could be on Mars that would be that profitable?) As I doubt that I will still be alive when such an expidition leaves, then it really does not matter to me if such an expidition is doomed by minimalists that just want any effort at all! Why would the problems that I brought up be so very incorrect? On some points even the great guru of Mars enthsiasts Dr, Zubrin admits to at least some of the problems. And articicial gravity is absolutely one of them, thus the possible relevance to this thread!

JonClarke · Sep 24, 2006

I am sorry you don't want to explain your position further. Nor is it about defending or criticising any positions taken by Zubrin. He is just one person amongst many who have explored this issue. Since you don't want engage the issue by starting a specific thread, here is a brief response to the points in your earlier post. I believe this is important as they are based on some common misconceptions. Each one alone could serve as the basis of a whole thread in itself. 1. Nuclear propulsion. With or with out nuclear propulsion the journey to Mars will be many month long. With both chemical and the most likely nuclear propulsion the one way flight times are of the order of 6 months. The main advantage of nuclear propulsion is to provide somewhat larger payloads not shorter light times. 2. Zero gravity Six month missions to Mars without the complexity of spin gravity are entirely feasible. They are routine for a quarter of a century. At the time that Zubrin wrote CfM no US astronaut had flown a mission of this duration, which is a feeble excuse to ignore that that The USSR had been flyting missions of this duration and longer for more than a decade. 3. Radiation Exposure levels are reduced by maxmising surface time and minimising transit time. Solar flares can be reduced by good spacecraft design and internal stoirm shelters. Current estimates are that exposures will fall within present occupational limists for astronauts. 4. Number of spacecraft This is an issue you have raised repeatedly. Sending multiple spacecraft is extremely costly. If you send empty spacecraft accompanying the back up the crewed ones, you double the mission cost for no increase in return. If you have each spacecraft crewed to increase the return, each t must have twice the capacity for life support, consumables, and accommodation, perhaps tripling the mission cost. It i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

mattblack · Sep 24, 2006

You're right, Jon; I'd forgotten about Valeri. However, it'd be interesting to see what they could do now with more modern medical analysis technology and remedial procedures (drugs & exercise) for a team of Astros spending time in a low gravity environment, travelling a long time in Zero-g, landing & then re-launching them for another long simulated travel time. And with lots of work for them to do, see how they stand up mentally. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

para3 · Sep 24, 2006

I've worked hard all my life, in factories, since graduating. And you know how hard factory work is sometimes unless you never worked in a factory. And I'm still employed in a factory because I like this kind of work. This works out to be just a little over 40 years. So I do real work, not behind a desk pushing a pencil around and looking important. And obviously, not getting rich off the backs of the employees who work for these companies because many of them are to tight to pay decent wages. So that is why I say that. Or at least enough dough to buy a trip aboard the ISS for a week, like all the other filthy rich people. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .....Shuttle me up before I get tooooooooo old and feeble.....---Happiness is winning a huge lottery--- </div>

frodo1008 · Sep 24, 2006

As you took the time to make very detailed and time consuming analysis (and you do have some very good points) I will start a thread on this subject. I really don't like doing this as you need to be on top of everybody’s posts if you are going to do justice to such a subject with your own thread. Hopefully, you also realize that I am not going to take the time to search out other threads that may be on this subject. So do remember that it was your suggestion and you are a MOD! I am not very original, so how about a rather direct approach for a title. How about: "Problems and solutions for missions to Mars!" Please don't look for this right away as I am going to take your excellent last post as my guide. In some cases I agree with you, and in others I disagree, but it is all good "Grist for the Mill" if you get my drift! Please also realize that this is indeed a very speculative subject, as I do believe that (and I would think that you would agree here) this is not going to happen for at least several decades, regardless of the methodologies used. So better solutions to the problems involved will be available, of that both you and I can also agree! You know, I was just thinking (a very bad habit of mine), that every one of the subjects of your post is worthy of at least a thread of its own. Such as: “Nuclear Propulsion for a Mars mission, Pros and cons!” As a first thread, so that is what I think I will do instead at this time. Then I got to further thinking, perhaps there should be entire forums on these subjects! Forums divided up into the following: perhaps I could take this over to the suggestions area? How about some other opinions there for this particular idea? Would you as a MOD sponsor such an idea? Or at the very least see to it that it was considered seriously? I KNOW it would be a lot of work, but things always seem so very fragmented, with many different threads o

JonClarke · Sep 25, 2006

All good ideas! I would like to suggest the fleet vs singel ship idea as the one for discussion. The other topics have been well trashed through at various times, but this one hasn't. What do you think? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Atlantis astronaut faints twice post flight....

johns805

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

para3

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

baktothemoon

Guest

askold

Guest

qso1

Guest

darkenfast

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

mattblack

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

mattblack

Guest

para3

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

mithridates

Guest

scottb50

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

mattblack

Guest

para3

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page