Future space station should be round, ball-shaped. A sphere.

[3488]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;<font color="#ff0000">Stresses in a rotating sphere are not distributed uniformly.&nbsp; Stresses are higher farther away from the axis of rotation.The only particular advantage that I see to a sphere is that it has maximum volume for a fixed surface area.&nbsp; There are advantages to other shapes if you wish to simulate gravite by imparting a rotaion. <br />Posted by DrRocket</font></DIV></p><p><font size="2"><strong>V</strong></font><strong><font size="2">ery true DrRocket, hence the giant outer planets being oblate spheroids, particularly Saturn & Uranus where their equators are approx 10% greater than their polar diameters.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2"><br />Below: Saturn Ring Plane crossing Hubble Space Telescope. The oblateness of Saturn's form is very apparent here due to the low density & fast rotation.<br /></font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Titan is the large moon on the left.&nbsp; </font></strong><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/5/d05fe2e4-e62a-4ce5-b573-98c19aa4da7d.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p><br /><font size="2"><strong>Uranus also at ring plane crossing Hubble Space Telescope (poles are left & right owing to the extreme axial tilt of Uranus). Like Saturn above, Uranus is clearly oblate due to the low density & fast rotation.</strong></font> <br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/4/756be68d-36ae-4937-8475-465678d9bcdf.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><strong>This is a most interesting thread. Something I know absolutely nothing about, but is most interesting to read about. </strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>My guess is that a spherical space station / spacecraft if spinning to create lets say 1 G internally at the equator would have to have internal ribs that are thicker at the 'equator' than at the 'poles' but each 'pole' would have to have some sort of reinforcing ring to precent the structure from spinning apart???<br /></strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown.&nbsp;</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>I'm not as worried about the sphere under stresses from rotation (i.e. a soccer ball), but how the structure handles the stresses of boosting the station to Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars and then upon arrival decelerating for Mars orbit capture.</p><p>You could not "kick" a structure like ISS to a Hohmann transfer orbit, it would break apart. So another kind of design is needed for the MOrS, hence the speculation about the sphere.</p><p>As soon as I find the time, I'll try to do some basic calculations.&nbsp;</p>

 

[pmn1]

<p class="MsoNormal">I've posted this previously but it was quite an interesting idea.. </p><p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p class="MsoNormal">There was a paper in the December 1991 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society by Michael A Minovitch of Phaser Telepropulsion Inc proposing the building of rotating 2001 type stations 100metres diameter for at least 150 crew by using automatic wrapping machines rotating round inflated Kevlar torus&rsquo; to wind thin layers of aluminium until the required thickness had been made. <br /> <br /> The rotating toroidal living section would have a major and minor radii of 100m and 2m while the two central column cylinders with labs etc and constructed in the same way would each be 100m long x 10m diameter. The two column cylinders would connect into a pre-fabricated central hub into which three spokes 100m long x 4m diameter also constructed in the same way would be fitted to join the hub to the toroidal living section. <br /> <br /> The station also served as the basis for a 'cycling' ship and would take about 10 HLLV (assuming 100 tons/launch) or 14 Shuttle-C launches and 1 STS flight with minimal EVA. <br /> <br /> Costs were about $400 billion for an Earth orbit station, a Mars orbit station and a cycling ship</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've posted this previously but it was quite an interesting idea.. &nbsp;There was a paper in the December 1991 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society by Michael A Minovitch of Phaser Telepropulsion Inc proposing the building of rotating 2001 type stations 100metres diameter for at least 150 crew by using automatic wrapping machines rotating round inflated Kevlar torus&rsquo; to wind thin layers of aluminium until the required thickness had been made. The rotating toroidal living section would have a major and minor radii of 100m and 2m while the two central column cylinders with labs etc and constructed in the same way would each be 100m long x 10m diameter. The two column cylinders would connect into a pre-fabricated central hub into which three spokes 100m long x 4m diameter also constructed in the same way would be fitted to join the hub to the toroidal living section. The station also served as the basis for a 'cycling' ship and would take about 10 HLLV (assuming 100 tons/launch) or 14 Shuttle-C launches and 1 STS flight with minimal EVA. Costs were about $400 billion for an Earth orbit station, a Mars orbit station and a cycling ship <br /> Posted by pmn1</DIV></p><p>The best means of building infrastructure is using upper stages of a TSTO system as building blocks. Once in orbit the engines would be removed, for re-use and the tanks would become building blocks for various habitates and vehicles. This would provide a coupe of advantages over a ball structure, first; using multiple cylindical Modules would provide added safety, failure in one would not affect others. Second;various configurations could be built by connecting Modules. Third; the Modules would be interchangable, serving one purpose in one configuration and another in another configuration. As the basic Modules are part of the launch system getting a primary payload to orbit to begin with it would be a lot more economical then having the infrastructure a separate payload and the launch vehicle dedicated to that specific use.</p><p>What I see is a basic LEO Station being thirteen upper stage tanks, a central Module with eight radial Modules and a single Module at the outer end. If rotated gravity can be simulated in the outer Modules. Attaching two, or more, basic Stations would be used as vehicles or simply larger Stations as needed.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The best means of building infrastructure is using upper stages of a TSTO system as building blocks. Once in orbit the engines would be removed, for re-use and the tanks would become building blocks for various habitates and vehicles. This would provide a coupe of advantages over a ball structure, first; using multiple cylindical Modules would provide added safety, failure in one would not affect others. Second;various configurations could be built by connecting Modules. Third; the Modules would be interchangable, serving one purpose in one configuration and another in another configuration. As the basic Modules are part of the launch system getting a primary payload to orbit to begin with it would be a lot more economical then having the infrastructure a separate payload and the launch vehicle dedicated to that specific use.What I see is a basic LEO Station being thirteen upper stage tanks, a central Module with eight radial Modules and a single Module at the outer end. If rotated gravity can be simulated in the outer Modules. Attaching two, or more, basic Stations would be used as vehicles or simply larger Stations as needed.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>How about a hammer design?</p><p>That design has been looked at before.&nbsp; It doesn't have to be a rigid structure either.&nbsp; A rotational tether can also be used to achieve the same type of results for smaller habitats.&nbsp; The principle is the same it's just the materials and stresses that have to be considered.&nbsp; A big "hammer station" would have all sorts of problems but, it's something that people have worked a few of the kinks out of already.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/9/eca50b9f-996d-41f5-b9e6-0f89be0ca715.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</p><p>(Exagerrated)</p><p>I didn't include anything to deal with forces that aren't on the plane of rotation.&nbsp; Those would be "bad things" and best not thought about. &nbsp; But, it's just a random idea, no details. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Stresses in a rotating sphere are not distributed uniformly.&nbsp; Stresses are higher farther away from the axis of rotation.The only particular advantage that I see to a sphere is that it has maximum volume for a fixed surface area.&nbsp; There are advantages to other shapes if you wish to simulate gravite by imparting a rotaion. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />The extra volume not inside the 1g zone could possibly be used to support biomass for oxygen and food production. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>The problem seems to be, <br /><br />that the spin radius needs to be relatively big to lessen coriolis effect, that would have adverse effects on humans. According to wikipedia less than 2 revolutions per minute are required for a rotating platform to be suitable for humans and only 1 rpm being optimal.</p><p>So let's say MOrS would rotate at 1.5 rpm.</p><p>To produce similar force to Mars gravity, 0.38 G or 3.72 m/s^2, at the sphere's equator, the radius of MOrS would have to be R = (9.81 m/s^2 * 0.38 G) / ((pi * 1.5 rpm) / 30)^2 = 151 metres.</p><p>So the diameter of MOrS would be 300 metres, but this would be good only for simulating Mars gravity. More would be required to be optimal, perhaps atleast twice the Mars gravity (0.76 G).</p><p>It looks like MOrS is going to be a massive construction project in space. Probably doable anyway. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In that case, why not transport them to Mars in such a structure, so no rehabilitation is necessary? Send a single habitable craft toward Mars, rather than two (if I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly). Also, for such an application, a simple rotating torus would be more effective...a spherical station would be more useful for Earth orbit due to its microgravity research potential. <br />Posted by Huntster</DIV><br /><br />Another way with less construction is two connected craft rotation about a common center. There's really no need to build the entire torus to get 1g. Two craft much smaller than a complete torus would greatly reduce construction time and cost. It would also create redundecy by having crews in two independent&nbsp; vehicles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another way with less construction is two connected craft rotation about a common center. There's really no need to build the entire torus to get 1g. Two craft much smaller than a complete torus would greatly reduce construction time and cost. It would also create redundecy by having crews in two independent&nbsp; vehicles. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>You beat me to it.</p><p>I was just going to announce, that I've come up with a better solution. 2 crafts, that will be connected on Mars orbit using a suitable connecting structure. </p><p>Both crafts will provide 1 G habitable space, plus the redundancy for a safe mission will be there also aswell as quick transit.</p><p>It's not nearly as cool design as a Death Star on Mars orbit, but we need to keep it realistic here. This is not science fiction, after all. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You beat me to it.I was just going to announce, that I've come up with a better solution. 2 crafts, that will be connected on Mars orbit using a suitable connecting structure. Both crafts will provide 1 G habitable space, plus the redundancy for a safe mission will be there also aswell as quick transit.It's not nearly as cool design as a Death Star on Mars orbit, but we need to keep it realistic here. This is not science fiction, after all. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />Sorry about that </p><p>It seems to make sense. Why build a full torus when you only need two habitats with 1G. I like to use the word pragmatic. Less construction=lower cost=more likelyhood of it ever actually being funded.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry about that It seems to make sense. Why build a full torus when you only need two habitats with 1G. I like to use the word pragmatic. Less construction=lower cost=more likelyhood of it ever actually being funded. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>This is the way humans will eventually go to Mars, and return. The sooner, the better.<br /><br /> The astronauts will need the gravity conditions there to maintain health and stay fit to do work also on the surface of Mars. Plus the whole mission needs to have maximum redundancy built into it. This means two crafts for transit.</p><p>We, the Space People, should really make a polished proposal and start pushing it. </p>

 

[tampaDreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is the way humans will eventually go to Mars, and return. The sooner, the better. The astronauts will need the gravity conditions there to maintain health and stay fit to do work also on the surface of Mars. Plus the whole mission needs to have maximum redundancy built into it. This means two crafts for transit.We, the Space People, should really make a polished proposal and start pushing it. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />You don't need 1g in transit unless there is a really long trip being planned, probably longer than a mars trip.&nbsp; The question is, how much will mars gravity prevent bone loss and muscle density loss and the other problems with weighlessness/microgravity.&nbsp; If it is found that it greatly decreases the problems, then transit to and from mars in weighlessness will probably be ok.&nbsp; Suppose the trip is 18 months.. even 24.&nbsp; I think astronauts can handle that.&nbsp; Is it ideal?&nbsp; probably not.&nbsp; But it can be done.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, the two ships on a string construction being SO much cheaper and easier than the torus construction (assuming a tether can be made), it might be worth it anyway. Great idea.</p><p>&nbsp;If it is found that the problems from weighlessness still occur in mars gravity, it is possible that we will need some way to impart 1g on the astronauts during their trip..&nbsp; and then you have to consider the length of stay.&nbsp; If it's a 2 year journey each way and a one year stay, mars gravity for a year is probably ok.&nbsp; if it's a 4 year stay (seems more realistic), then you may have to consider sending them to orbit periodically to "get some g" on the ship, or building some kind of centrifugal sleeping/exercise facility on mars surface for them to "get some g".</p><p>&nbsp;Does anyone know how much mars gravity ameliorates the problems of weightlessness?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't need 1g in transit unless there is a really long trip being planned, probably longer than a mars trip.&nbsp; The question is, how much will mars gravity prevent bone loss and muscle density loss and the other problems with weighlessness/microgravity.&nbsp; If it is found that it greatly decreases the problems, then transit to and from mars in weighlessness will probably be ok.&nbsp; Suppose the trip is 18 months.. even 24.&nbsp; I think astronauts can handle that.&nbsp; Is it ideal?&nbsp; probably not.&nbsp; But it can be done.&nbsp;&nbsp; Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV><br /><br />The data from microgravity in LEO suggests that you are wrong. It will be essential for humans to have significant gravity (real or artificial) or the bone loss and muscle wasting will be a serious problem when they land on Mars, IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The data from microgravity in LEO suggests that you are wrong. It will be essential for humans to have significant gravity (real or artificial) or the bone loss and muscle wasting will be a serious problem when they land on Mars, IMHO. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Not only are you correct, this is the number 1 issue for a manned mission to Mars.&nbsp; It is the major reason for research into nuclear propulsion and other means of both shortening the trip or providing an acceleration to simulate gravity.&nbsp; It would also be useful for the return trip (and that is another major issue, as I am aware of no one who wants to take a one-way trip to Mars, although I can think of a few who might profitably be sent).<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">Not only are you correct, this is the number 1 issue for a manned mission to Mars.&nbsp; It is the major reason for research into nuclear propulsion and other means of both shortening the trip or providing an acceleration to simulate gravity.&nbsp; It would also be useful for the return trip (and that is another major issue, as I am aware of no one who wants to take a one-way trip to Mars, although I can think of a few who might profitably be sent). <br /> Posted by DrRocket</font></DIV></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Yes, absolutely, long duration weightlessness, causing bone & muscle loss, no matter how har the crew members excersise will make landing on ANY object with appreciable surface gravity dangerous, be it the Moon, Callisto (probably the first object humans will set on beyond the Asteroid Belt), Ganymede, Europa, Io, Titan, Mercury, Mars, etc.&nbsp;</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Nuclear rocketry is really the only way forward to also shorten journey times. True high performance chemical rockets would also help, but they require oxidisers where as a Nuclear rocket does not. Ion propulsion whilst very effective over the long term (Deep Space 1 & DAWN), is far too slow with human crews (though can still be used for course correction, attitude maintenance etc, rather than primary propulsion).</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown.&nbsp;</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about a hammer design?That design has been looked at before.&nbsp; It doesn't have to be a rigid structure either.&nbsp; A rotational tether can also be used to achieve the same type of results for smaller habitats.&nbsp; The principle is the same it's just the materials and stresses that have to be considered.&nbsp; A big "hammer station" would have all sorts of problems but, it's something that people have worked a few of the kinks out of already. &nbsp;(Exagerrated)I didn't include anything to deal with forces that aren't on the plane of rotation.&nbsp; Those would be "bad things" and best not thought about. &nbsp; But, it's just a random idea, no details. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>That sort of illustrates my idea, with a few exceptions. A central Module with eight radial Modules and Additional Modules at the end of the radial Modules. Rotation would be around the central Module with the rotation speed set for the graity being simulated. For a Mars trip I would use Mars gravity for the ourbound trip and start the inbound trip with Mars gravity and gradually increase it to Earth normal during the trip. Lunar transits could also benefit from an adaption period, whether it would belong enough would be the main question.</p><p>What I had in mind was assembling a number of identical Assemblies and docking them to one another, a Mars mission would use three or four 13 Module Assemblies. With a cycler type operation one Assembly would be the dedicated cycler with the other attached as needed for a trip. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>I only support gravity simulation during the transit if it doesn't increase the time it takes to complete the trip or make course corrections more costly (which I believe it would do both).</p><p>So in my vision the gravity simulation only occurs on stable Mars orbit once the astronauts have arrived there. We'd need to build a orbiting and rotating laboratory there that could support permanent human presence at Mars for many decades.<br /> <br />I find it odd and troublesome that we're not already working on it. The agencies continue to send a robot to do a man's job, so relying on the agencies will keep us grounded for the foreseeable future.</p><p>We should work for the human space exploration like Elon does.&nbsp;</p>

 

[tampaDreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The data from microgravity in LEO suggests that you are wrong. It will be essential for humans to have significant gravity (real or artificial) or the bone loss and muscle wasting will be a serious problem when they land on Mars, IMHO. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />What about the 2-4 years they spend on mars?&nbsp; Will the reduced gravity cause significant problems?&nbsp; I doubt that periodicaly lifting them back to mars orbit to get on the rotation mars space station is going to be a viable option for giving them some G.&nbsp; So then you'd need a solution for the surface as well.&nbsp; Maybe a rotating chamber for sleeping could be a solution?&nbsp; Then you could just drop it down to mars with the astronauts and solve both problems with the same solution.</p><p>As for volunteers to make a one-way trip, I recall a russian cosmonaut (female) that volunteered for this.&nbsp; If I recall, she was the lady that set records for the most time in orbit in a single stretch on Mir.&nbsp; She was being interviewed and said she'd love to go to mars, even if it was a one-way trip.&nbsp; Gave me goosebumps.&nbsp; She looks to be in her 50's and might not be the best choice from a science/skills aspect, but there's atleast one person willing to do the job with some qualifications.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about the 2-4 years they spend on mars?&nbsp; Will the reduced gravity cause significant problems?&nbsp; I doubt that periodicaly lifting them back to mars orbit to get on the rotation mars space station is going to be a viable option for giving them some G.&nbsp; So then you'd need a solution for the surface as well.&nbsp; Maybe a rotating chamber for sleeping could be a solution?&nbsp; Then you could just drop it down to mars with the astronauts and solve both problems with the same solution.As for volunteers to make a one-way trip, I recall a russian cosmonaut (female) that volunteered for this.&nbsp; If I recall, she was the lady that set records for the most time in orbit in a single stretch on Mir.&nbsp; She was being interviewed and said she'd love to go to mars, even if it was a one-way trip.&nbsp; Gave me goosebumps.&nbsp; She looks to be in her 50's and might not be the best choice from a science/skills aspect, but there's atleast one person willing to do the job with some qualifications.&nbsp; <br />Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV><br /><br />I'd imagine they will just adapt to the Mars gravity. What the long term affects will be I'm sure will be a subject of intense investigation. Perhaps they will find that some surface based articficial gravity will be needed for health. It would seem prudent to plan for that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>I'd think working 6 - 12 months on the surface of Mars in reduced gravity might be possible. The rest of the mission would be spent at the orbital laboratory in 1 G conditions. There could be 2 teams, one team on the surface and the other at the orbital laboratory and switching over after a certain period.<br /> </p><p>There would be a lot of work to do on orbit analysing samples, coordinating the surface operations etc. that don't need to be done on the ground.</p><p>IMO, on the surface, building and maintaining the base camp combined with scientific tasks would be such a workload, that they probably didn't even notice being in reduced gravity.</p><p>Surface operations outside the base camp hab would require wearing a space-suit, that on earth would have the mass of perhaps 30 - 40 kilograms? This would be atleast somewhat comparable to 1G gravity simulation on Mars, atleast for the muscles.</p><p>For the brains, bones and cardiovascular I'm not sure if wearing extra weight might help. I think it might, it's different from 0 gravity, because you atleast have some gravity you could work with and try to enhance.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

 

[wick07]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As for volunteers to make a one-way trip, I recall a russian cosmonaut (female) that volunteered for this.&nbsp; If I recall, she was the lady that set records for the most time in orbit in a single stretch on Mir.&nbsp; She was being interviewed and said she'd love to go to mars, even if it was a one-way trip.&nbsp; Gave me goosebumps.&nbsp; She looks to be in her 50's and might not be the best choice from a science/skills aspect, but there's atleast one person willing to do the job with some qualifications.&nbsp; <br />Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV><br /><br />Well, a one-way trip doesn't have to be fatalistic.&nbsp; Simply planning a mission to become a permenant settlement would be a one-way trip.&nbsp; Many of the first settlers in the New World came on just such a mission.&nbsp; Any person who lived on Mars for several years would probably find returning to Earth uncomfortable anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#3366ff"><strong>_______________________________<em> </em></strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"</em>If you are surrounded by those who constatly agree with you, then you're in an intellectual vacuum.  If you feel like trying to make a difference, you have to BE different.  How can you do that without interacting with those who are different from yourself?"</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">-  a_lost_packet_</font></p> </div>