Colds and a [Mars] colony

On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article , says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...
Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might
not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a
gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have
exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G
== Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other
points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*.

Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge
experiments on ISS.

The US CAM module never made it to ISS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module

The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates
(artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to:

* Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5
in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and
2g.

So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have
been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it.


True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for
humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't
complete it and launch it.


It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want
to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to
go. You still have to build a human test facility.

Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them.
They aren't enough but they are useful.

Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome
had been:
1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them
back to a functional state on Earth.
OR
2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects.

In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans.


Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test
with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it.


But after
outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the
best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health
degradation. But the risks seem reasonable.

After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before
going to Mars.


I think you got your outcomes flipped.

Yes you are correct on that.

But I think you're wrong in
any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing
to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat
testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got
human test results.

There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award.

Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for
people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off.

I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I
said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans". But if it
is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. Would you try eating a
mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be
lethal to rats?

It could
just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the
evolution to a spacefaring species.

It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind
of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth.
There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species.

Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was
very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be
necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go.


Alain Fournier