Is it possible to breathe in space?

[TimeTheFinalFrontier]

Yes, it is possible.

You can breathe out.

After that you're stuck, as breathing in is not likely possible.

 

[MeteorWayne]

And what gas would it be around a neutron star. Oxygen? I think not....

 

[robnissen]

Its kind of the worst of all worlds. The few atoms, molecules and dust in interstellar space are too few and far between to be useful for anything. While at the same time, those few atoms, molecules and dust would quickly destroy a space ship going at any significant % of c, like .1c because of the extreme energies they would have due to their high speed relative to the ship. So, not only can we not use them as resources for an interstellar journey, their very existence will make an interstellar journey in any reasonable time period virtually impossible.

 

[aremisasling]

robnissen,

I'll take issue with you on that one. I've never heard that raised as an issue by anyone from sci fi folks to engineers actually contemplating interstellar travel. Dust, maybe, but individual atoms are unlikely to be an issue. I've heard it suggested that we could travel fractions of the speed of light outside of the gravitational envelope of solar systems, accelerating once outside of our own and decelerating on approach to the destination. Sure there's dust out there, and frankly a whole lot of who-knows-what, but it appears to be few and far between.

 

[Windbourne]

Do not be silly. Of course, you can breath in space. Just like you can breath in water. HOWEVER, in both cases, it will not be for very long.

 

[nimbus]

robnissen,

I'll take issue with you on that one. I've never heard that raised as an issue by anyone from sci fi folks to engineers actually contemplating interstellar travel. Dust, maybe, but individual atoms are unlikely to be an issue. I've heard it suggested that we could travel fractions of the speed of light outside of the gravitational envelope of solar systems, accelerating once outside of our own and decelerating on approach to the destination. Sure there's dust out there, and frankly a whole lot of who-knows-what, but it appears to be few and far between.

This got off topic so the answer's here:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=24231&start=0

 

[davideric2]

It would be far more difficult than turning on a vacuum-cleaner, inserting the hose into your mouth, and attempting to breathe the dust back out of the bag. Yes, technically the dust is there- but your lungs and mouth would be 100% output and 0% input until they collapse tighter than a Swiss bank vault.

(Don't try this at home, by the way, unless you have certified safety-personnel on standby).

The vacuum of space, even around gas-bubble remnants of exploded stars, is on a much stronger scale...

 

[Lancelot_64]

I dont believe we could breath in space.

Time Travel :
I believe we already 'time travel' to an extent. If the sources I have read are correct any object that moves at speed realizes a distortion of time. For instance, upon return to earth Rich Nixon congratulated a group of Apollo astronauts for a good mission and for being a bit younger than the rest of us who had remained stationary. The President had been advised of this minute time distortion by scientists and thought it would be fun to make the factual statement in jest. Also, in various books I have read over the years Einstien suggested a distortion of time as proven by synced atomic clocks placed on two separater jets moving at a high rate of speed. Given all the proof I have read I believe time travel happens naturally everyday. However this effect has only been proven as one-way, going only forward in time.

To be able to control time and to be able to move backwards and forwards at will.. boggles my mind. At a philosophical level im almost certain if one can accelerate forwards then naturally one should be able to do the opposite.. most things in nature are not one-way so why should time distortion be?

One has to admit that to understand the time travel question may entail full understanding of other dimensions or things we dont even know to exist yet.. We are not even close to defining all that we need to know to calculate a reasonable answer!! These must be difficult questions - similar to how gravity works - its right under our noses yet how to manipulate it still evades us today.. Aside from mechanically cheating via air planes etc lol.. (personally this problem drives me crazy lol)

Thanks so much for a intriguing question.

 

[nimbus]

It's getting off topic, so I'm only linking it. You might find this interesting:
youtube.com/watch?v=WKsNraFxPwk
@ google books
@ Amazon

 

[Sterculius]

Hi, you could exhale once very quickly in space and that would be the end of your breathing experiment as there would be nothing to breathe back in and your lungs would freeze almost instantly if you tried. :geek:

I have heard though that a human exposed to space could survive perhaps up to a minute or so before becoming a corpsicle.

Actually No to both statements; it would take a while for a body to freeze in space because a vacuum is a very poor conductor of heat which is why we have vacuum bottles for drinks.

 

[amshak]

There is a Mejorety of Hydrogen, in Space . And that is what we need . Not for Breathing Of course . But we could utilize it for Energy for flight in the Future - For Future Fusion Generators. And we could utilize it for producing water. Hydrogen and available Oxygen . What do yo think about these two idea

 

[aremisasling]

We have vacuum bottles for drinks.

Drinks aren't bottled in a vacuum. Even if we take the air out, it's still not a vacuum, it has the container as well as any gasses produced by the chemical processes in the drink (carbonation and/or spoilage). If they were poor conductors of heat putting a drink in the refrigerator would be kinda silly. We take the air out to starve any trace bacteria of oxygen and prevent oxidization of any food solids remaining (Apples turning brown is the product of oxidization). But it doesn't make a vacuum.

That said, you are totally right on the conduction in space. It certainly wouldn't be a place to spend spring break, but it would take some time to cool you off. However, you still would only last a few minutes as your brain would suffer from oxygen deprivation. Irreversable brain damage kicks in somewhere around 8 minutes even if you're quick-thinking enough to grab a lungful of air. You'd be unconscious in far less unless you've been trained for deep free dives or something like it.

 

[NoDozRequiem]

I have to say, I was surprised to see this forum listed under the "More Top Stories" section--so I'm glad it was moved from there. Were I to stumble upon space.com today for my first time and saw this forum linked to top stories, I would have to seriously question the validity of this site.

In any case, at least some good info has been disclosed to the person who posed the question. I hope they find themselves informed.

 

[MeteorWayne]

We have vacuum bottles for drinks.

Drinks aren't bottled in a vacuum. Even if we take the air out, it's still not a vacuum, it has the container as well as any gasses produced by the chemical processes in the drink (carbonation and/or spoilage). If they were poor conductors of heat putting a drink in the refrigerator would be kinda silly. We take the air out to starve any trace bacteria of oxygen and prevent oxidization of any food solids remaining (Apples turning brown is the product of oxidization). But it doesn't make a vacuum.

That said, you are totally right on the conduction in space. It certainly wouldn't be a place to spend spring break, but it would take some time to cool you off. However, you still would only last a few minutes as your brain would suffer from oxygen deprivation. Irreversable brain damage kicks in somewhere around 8 minutes even if you're quick-thinking enough to grab a lungful of air. You'd be unconscious in far less unless you've been trained for deep free dives or something like it.

The person was talking about vacuum flasks (thermos bottles) where the inner container is surrounded by a (fair) vacuum. This keeps hot drinks hot, and cold drinks cold for longer than they would maintain their temperature otherwise.
That is because a vacuum is a poor conductor of heat.

 

[aremisasling]

Aha, that makes more sense. My apologies for the correction.

 

[agrusag]

Intersteller travel

robnissen,

I'll take issue with you on that one. I've never heard that raised as an issue by anyone from sci fi folks to engineers actually contemplating interstellar travel. Dust, maybe, but individual atoms are unlikely to be an issue. I've heard it suggested that we could travel fractions of the speed of light outside of the gravitational envelope of solar systems, accelerating once outside of our own and decelerating on approach to the destination. Sure there's dust out there, and frankly a whole lot of who-knows-what, but it appears to be few and far between.

This got off topic so the answer's here:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=24231&start=0

I don't mind it geting off-topic. I already have my answer. But I would like to hear more about what robnissen has to say. I have always like the whole travel-through space thing, and any conversations you have about it, I would like to be a part of.

 

[agrusag]

Time travel

I dont believe we could breath in space.

Time Travel :
I believe we already 'time travel' to an extent. If the sources I have read are correct any object that moves at speed realizes a distortion of time. For instance, upon return to earth Rich Nixon congratulated a group of Apollo astronauts for a good mission and for being a bit younger than the rest of us who had remained stationary. The President had been advised of this minute time distortion by scientists and thought it would be fun to make the factual statement in jest. Also, in various books I have read over the years Einstien suggested a distortion of time as proven by synced atomic clocks placed on two separater jets moving at a high rate of speed. Given all the proof I have read I believe time travel happens naturally everyday. However this effect has only been proven as one-way, going only forward in time.

To be able to control time and to be able to move backwards and forwards at will.. boggles my mind. At a philosophical level im almost certain if one can accelerate forwards then naturally one should be able to do the opposite.. most things in nature are not one-way so why should time distortion be?

One has to admit that to understand the time travel question may entail full understanding of other dimensions or things we dont even know to exist yet.. We are not even close to defining all that we need to know to calculate a reasonable answer!! These must be difficult questions - similar to how gravity works - its right under our noses yet how to manipulate it still evades us today.. Aside from mechanically cheating via air planes etc lol.. (personally this problem drives me crazy lol)

Thanks so much for a intriguing question.

I figured that being able to travel in time would be the opposite. The past is set in stone, and nothing can change it. Whereas the future hasn't been settled yet. So, if time travel were possible, wouldn't the logical explaination be that it can only go between present day and the past? :?:

 

[MeteorWayne]

You might not mind getting off topic, but we do here at SDC. If you want to discuss an off topic issue, start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

Meteor Wayne