|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, Carey
Sublette says... wrote in message oups.com... [Arbitrary food selection for astronauts] As their employer and outfitter, we have that responsibility. Is that clear enough? When the time comes that explorers of Mars can be self-employed, fine, but until then... There is a more hard-headed answer: the astronaut has agreed to serve as an agent of exploration for the space program and some billions of dollars are being invested per astronaut to carry out the exploration mission. The space program will do everything possible to ensure that the astronaut will remain capable of carrying out his/her duties to protect the mission (and investment), and the astronaut will be *required* to comply with a dietary program that space program nutritionists and psychologists believe will ensure their continued ability to perform their duties. That way, when it turns out that they are unable to perform their duties, we can say, "See, it's *their fault*, because they *didn't follow the requirements*", and absolve ourselves of blame. This is indeed quite important to a lot of people, but some of us are more interested in whether or not the astronauts can actually perform their duties. In which case the relevant issue is what they *actually* do, not what they are *required* to do. Which are two different things, even for highly motivated people who agree to the requirements. You seem to be missing the point here. We know how to freeze or dehydrate carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals sufficient to provide a nutricious diet. But, food which is not eaten, provides no nutrition, no matter what its chemical composition. Food which is eaten but not digested, provides no nutrition, no matter what its chemical composition. And there is empirical evidence that, even for highly motivated people who agree to the conditions, the sorts of food most amenable to long-term storage are the sorts of food least likely to be actually eaten, least likely to be properly digested if they are eaten, exlusively over a period of years. To the point of actual malnutrition or undernutrition of people amply supplied with nutritious food. There is *also* empirical evidence that, even for highly motivated people who agree to the conditions, food which was chosen for them by others is less likely to be eaten and properly digested than food which they chose for themselves. Again, to the point of actual malnutrition or undernutrition of people amply supplied with nutritious food. The first is an intrinsic problem with long-duration spaceflight. Almost certainly a problem that can be solved with relatively little effort, but it makes things *harder* if we force the second problem into the proposed solution of the first. Fortunately, the nutritionists and psychologists already know this, and if you ask them in general terms how best to deal with the issue will suggest leaving most of the decisions to the people who are actually going to be eating the stuff (or not). Unfortunately, there is a human instinct against sharing power, so if not knowing any better you outright instruct the nutritionists and psychologists to specify the diets of the astronauts, they may not bother to correct you. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
As their employer and outfitter, we have that responsibility.
Is that clear enough? It's an argument by assertion. Clear, but completely unconvincing. So you aren't convinced that your empoyer is responsible for providing a safe stairway in the mutlit-story building he has you work in? /dps |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Craig Fink" wrote in message news On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:41:12 +0000, Carey Sublette wrote: I think the "cherry box" on the viewgraph: " Improvements in food storage technology or production technology are also needed to reduce overall mass and ensure crew health." states the issue accurate, but the other sentence on the slide: "Current food preservation technology is not capable of providing nutritionally viable food for the longer mission durations under study" is a bit of a misstatement. Ensuring crew health requires a diet that is varied and palatable so that the crew eats properly, and the food itself is not a source of stress on the mission (psychological health). And the trick is to do it with low mass foods (i.e. dehydrated). Also, nutrition science is far beyond the RDA stage - finding the essential individual components in a diet required for health. We all know about the debates about what makes an *optimum* healthy diets: What kind of fats and in what proportion? How much and what kind of fiber? How much flavonoids and carotenoids, and what kinds, with what ratios? Etc. I think it is the combined problem of satisfying all of these together, and quite clearly no one has ever developed a food system like this before. The whole viewgraph presentation is about design trade-offs, and the dietary aspect of a mission is going to involve trade-offs of its own. For a palatable, optimally healthy, indefinitely storable diet a solution is at hand right now - just prepare thousands of excellent meals and freeze them in ready-to-eat form. But this is quite heavy with all that water. Maintaining the good qualities of those meals but getting rid of the water mass, not so easy. I've always thought a garden is the way to go. Lots of ...... When I went sailing a while back, it was the fresh stuff I missed most. The crunch of a nice salad, squish of a fresh tomatoes, that type of thing. The lettuce we had after two or three weeks (with no refrigeration) was great, even though I had to peel off the outer centimeter or so of scum. That and human converstion, but that won't be a problem with the going to Mars. Or, will it????????? This is the one area where no food preservation technology exists: fresh salads of tomatoes and leafy vegetables. These are all high water content plants that don't dehydrate, and don't freeze - doing anything at all to them beyond keeping them fresh turns them into mush. Some of these ingredients are still good in mush form (think tomato sauce and sauerkraut) but they aren't fresh (and lettuce fails utterly - though I do have a book with a New Zealand recipe for baked lettuce!). You can freeze salads of some of the more carbohydrate rich, lower water vegetables - but they aren't what most people think of as "salad". It might be worthwhile to have a hydroponic unit on a Mars misson to produce fresh leafy vaegetables and tomatoes for an occasional delicacy, it could also provide a "garden spot" for the crew. Carey Sublette |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Carey Sublette" wrote:
You haven't actually tried the "high-end supermarket" shopping bit have you? Yes, I have. And you'll find the frozen 'gourmet' foods in them are largely targeted at a slightly different audience than the fresh products in the same store. You see the same differentiation even at a low- or mid- end supermarket. (Just two weeks ago I was in a high end grocery/restaurant supply store. Their frozen section was barely as big as that at my local 7-11, and was mostly devoted to ice cream and frozen yogurt. A telling point.) The point is modern freezing technology works very well. The fact that it can be stored badly, and defrosted using poor techniques says nothing at all. Ah. The operation was a success, but the patient died. The point is, modern freezing technology isn't magical. There are severe compromises in texture and quality. (Especially in mass production.) Frozen foods are often better in nutrition and not infrequently in esthetic qualities compared to "real world" fresh, because shipping, handling, and storage allow for more deterioration for the "fresh". If it's deteriorated, it's not fresh Carey. Derek, this is very amusing. You believe food does not begin deteriorating from the moment it is harvested (picked/slaughtered) or prepared? Did I say that? No. But the normal degradation of product in shipping and handling isn't considered 'deterioration'. Deterioration means damage or putrefecation to the cook. Refrigeration (and other storage techniques, like CO2 atmospheres) retards deterioration, keeping it to acceptable levels for reasonable periods of time. Every bit of "fresh" food you buy has deteriorated in measurable ways from its point of origin. Even if food science isn't your bag (and I'd say, it isn't), basic biology and chemistry should clue you in on this. I do know food science. But I don't confuse food scientists with cooks. Food science is to cooking like a pulp mill is to fine woodowrking. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Carey Sublette" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Carey Sublette" wrote: There is a very substantial, and growing, frozen gourmet food industry. A little googling, or a trip to a high-end supermarket, easily turns up an vast range of products. It turns up what seems to be a vast range. In reality, you find it's a fairly narrow range with a bunch of different producers for each article. Check out: http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0403/235.html This is a New York Times account of the frozen foods available from just one company for one particular (small) segment of the frozen food market - ethnic Indian cuisine in the U.S.. Oddly enough, the article focuses most of it's attention on the snack foods. The frozen foods available for this one market segment runs at least into the hundreds of products (go to nice store in an Indian community in the U.S. to check it out). It's like the Asian, Hispanic, etc.. markets I've been in, the situation is just like that down at my local Safeway; the range of products is actually fairly narrow. The sheer bulk looks impressive until you realize there are 12 different manufacturers of Lasagna, 14 different for Salisbury Steaks, etc. Similar articles can easily be run about other ethnic markets - Latino/Hispanic, Chinese and other East Asian (actually several separate markets), etc.; as well as other vegetarian foods, etc. And these ethnic market segments aren't narrow? In every single ethnic market I've ever visited (dozens, including a couple of higher end Oriental markets), the amount of fresh product outweighs the frozen by at least 2-1. Having someone argue that the available high quality frozen food products is a "fairly narrow range" is a bit like encountering someone who asserts that the automobile has yet to really seriously challenge the horse and carriage. No, it's like encountering someone who can see the forest for the trees. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Multiple crashes running Boinc/seti last 3 days | Arthur Kimes | SETI | 13 | August 30th 04 03:50 AM |
Multiple crashes undering Boinc/seti last 3 days | Arthur Kimes | SETI | 0 | July 5th 04 09:33 PM |
Beyond Linear Cosmology and Hypnotic Theology | Yoda | Misc | 0 | June 30th 04 07:33 PM |
Multiple systems - How are they determined to be multiple? | Chris L Peterson | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | October 6th 03 06:47 AM |
Whats in the sky today | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | July 14th 03 04:24 AM |