A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

high g body orientation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 1st 04, 06:45 PM
Tim McDaniel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default high g body orientation

In article ,
Dumarest wrote:
is it better to orient someone, travelling at high g, perpendicular or
parallel to the line of acceleration (i.e. sitting/standing vs. lying
down vs. lying down but vertical)?


sci.space.tech is a better newsgroup for your question.
I've cross-posted there and redirected all followups there, so you'll
see replies to this article only if you read that newsgroup (or unless
someone replying changes the Newsgroups and Followup-to header lines
like I did).

I did a Google(TM)-brand Web search for
"high acceleration" posture
It finds few hits that are obviously helpful. The fourth hit was a
collection of e-mail and Usenet messages on G tolerance: "G tolerance
(Dani Eder; Henry Spencer; Jordin Kare; James Oberg)",
http://yarchive.net/space/science/g_tolerance.html. Mostly it's
about quantity and duration of acceleration, but there's a little on
postu

In article
(John Sotos) writes:

There are several points to be made about high G forces, blackouts,
neurological damage, and so forth.

...
The issue of "posture" is not a detail, it is critically important.
People blackout from G-forces when the acceleration is in the +Gz
direction (ie, blood is drawn out of the head toward the feet).
Pilots of high performance aircraft can usually tolerate about +9 Gz
with use of G-suits, straining maneuvers, etc....

Acceleration from front to back (+Gx) can be tolerated to a much
higher degree. Ham the chimp took +17 Gx during the launch of his
Mercury-Redstone flight and -14 Gx during re-entry. (The description
in The Right Stuff is a joy!) Apollo re-entries gave the astronauts
-7 Gx ("eyeballs out") or so.


As a lesser effect, I would also consider the load-bearing surface and
volume, though that's probably a lesser effect. If I were at 4 Gs, I
would weigh about half a ton. On my back, the load is distributed
(unevenly) across roughtly 860 square inches. Standing, it all lands
on my heels, about 50 square inches, through my leg bones.

Supine versus standing versus sitting are not the only choices. As
best I recall, a good one for 5ish Gs (?) is "seated on your back":
as if you sit down and then rotate the chair backwards 90 degrees.
Head and torso are horizontal, at the hips the legs bend upwards 90
degree vertical, at the knees the legs go horizontal again.

--
Tim McDaniel,
; is my work address
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
European high technology for the International Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 May 10th 04 02:40 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 03:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM
Scientists, Students Dig High and Low for 'Dirt' on Soil Moisture Ron Baalke Science 0 July 11th 03 09:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.