Worthy of survival

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : (Citizen Bob) wrote:
: : :
: : : :On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:22:04 GMT, Fred J. McCall
: : : wrote:
: : : :
: : : ::"To establish Post Offices and post Roads"
: : : :
: : : ::Yeah, the Post Office needs Interstate highways. LOL.
: : : :
: : : :A 'post road' would be any road used to transport mail. Is it your
: : : :claim that mail between cities has never traveled on an Interstate
: : : :highway?
: : : :
: : : :I just love your perverted logic.
: : :
: : : You apparently wouldn't know 'logic' is someone rammed some up your
: : : ass so it was right in front of your eyes.
: : :
: : : :Try it this way: If the govt never built Interstate highways, the Post
: : : :Office would have to use private ones. Your perverted logic is to
: : : :assume that there would be no highways if the govt did not build them.
: : :
: : : I see. So you can't read OR reason.
: : :
: : : I guess that finishes that.
: : :
: : : ::****ing troll.
: : : :
: : : :Yes, you are. Now go read the bloody thing before you say any more
: : : :stupid things.
: : : :
: : : :yawn
: : :
: : : Doesn't it hurt your asshole when you open your mouth that wide, what
: : : with your head being impacted and all?
: : :
: : oes your mother know you act like this? Wait, I bet like Tom DeLay,
: : :you don't even speak to your mother, right?
: :
: : If my mother had had any children as stupid as you are she would have
: : drowned them at birth.
: :
: :Your mother is a duck? That's what ducks do...
:
: Your mother is stupider than a duck? Well, at least we know where you
: get it from.
:
:My mother was third in her class (Magna Cum Laude), ...

There were three ducks in your mother's class?

:... so you have nothing
:there. Did your mother even go to college, McClod?

Yes, dear boy, and she did it in Europe a long time ago, back when
college actually meant something.

: : So, did your parents have any children that lived?
: :
: :All of them and doing well...
:
: That's good. They deserve some successes after you.
:
:You have no idea...

snicker

: o your children even speak to you?
:
: What makes you think I have children, El Chimpo?
:
:Yes, refreshing. The thought of you procreating is unnerving.

I don't think about you procreating at all. It doesn't surprise me,
though, that you are the sort of pervert who would think about me.

: Of course, you could return the favour and wonder why I think you have
: parents, too.
:
:Huh, well one was Cadet Colonel of the ROTC and the other Magna Cum
:Laude, and all I got was a lowly Computer Science degree from the same
:university.

Oh, I see. You were a legacy and the school was obligated to get you
through....

:P.S. Eactly how much salt water did you swallow while you were in the
:Navy?

Is that supposed to mean something? No doubt you fantasize about a
'taste test' to get an answer....

:P.S.S. My mom's favorite president is Jefferson, and writer, Nietzsche.
:I mention it because YOU like to quote both.

You trying to fix me up with your mother, now?

--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

wrote:

:I have conducted research into this subject, for over a decade and a
:half.

And yet you speak like an ignorant idiot and are afraid to give your
real name.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Clell Harmon wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Clell Harmon wrote:
: :
: : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:22:42 +0100, in a place far, far away,
: : : "EvilBill" made the phosphor on my monitor
: : : glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: : :
: : : Bob Kolker wrote:
: : : EvilBill wrote:
: : :
: : : It's not just the Arabs who can act uncivilised in the name of their
: : : God.
: : : True. But is is most often the Muslims.
: : :
: : : And the Christians.
: : :
: : : When was the last time a Christian detonated himself in a kindergarten
: : : screaming "Praise Jesus!"?
: : :
: : : They're too busy tying some poor ******* to the bumper of their truck
: : :and dragging him to death...
: :
: : Are you always this stupid or are you making an extra special effort?
: :
: : Just trying to get down to your level Fred...
:
: So you're always this stupid. What I expected.
:
:Can I keep this post? Gee Fred, you finally admit that you are
:stupid...

You can certainly keep it and probably should. Perhaps one day you
will actually learn to read and will understand what I said and how
stupid your rejoinder to it is.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

(Citizen Bob) wrote:

:Fascists come with the office, not the man who occupies it. Absolute
ower corrupts once honest men absolutely. That's why throughout
:recorded history, govt has been the root of all evil. Anyone who
:doesn't believe that GW Bush knew in advance about 911 is naive beyond
:description. And he was one of the most honest men ever to become
:President.
:
:NASA is a thinly-disguised defense project. You have completely left
:that fundamental component out of your diatribes. Positioning a manned
:weapons system in space is crucial to modern warfare.
:
:You didn't really expect the govt to confide in you regarding the real
urposes of NASA, did you?

Given the preceding, you're obviously merely insane.

Goodbye.

plonk

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
: 3. If we must go further Out the moon is an ideal supply shed and
: assembly area. It has a much shallower gravity well than does earth.
:
:So does Mars and Mars has an atmosphere, the Moon doesn't.

Yes, and that's another reason to prefer the Moon to Mars. Mars
doesn't have enough atmosphere to be useful (around 6-8 mBar at
surface) but it's enough to get in the way and degrade optical work.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

(PV) wrote:

(Wayne Throop) writes:
:Uh... no, actually it isn't, for reasons I've already explained.
:If you missed them, it's because the acceleration and visual references
:never get out of sync inside a rotating space station.
:
:Not to defend the ignoramus you're arguing with, but there is some reason
:to believe that you could get motion sickness on a small rotating space
:station. Different parts of your body feeling different forces (if your
:height is a significant fraction of the size of the spinning structure),
:can be nauseating, even lacking any visual cues. And stuff would fall
:freaky too. *

That's why we're talking about something big enough to get 1g at 1
RPM. Once you get down under 3 RPM the number of people who are
affected falls quite sharply.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

wrote:

:I have been using the term "gravity" loosely, thank you for the
:correction, but the description "small radius spin induced 1g
:capsule" does imply the gravity would be an effect of rotation. The
:effectively created "gravity" would be a positive result of
:rotation, but what negative affects on the human body are created by a
:small radius spin induced 1g capsule? Given the fact the gravitational
:"force" in a small radius spin induced 1g capsule is not created by
:the mass of the earth, it would not be logical assume that both 1g
:"forces" mass and spin induced would have the same effects on the
:human physiology, as they are inherently different.

Physics - learn some.

Acceleration is acceleration. Gravity isn't some 'magic' that makes
it different.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Interesting information, but providing basic definitions in a
condescending manner does not demonstrate you're understanding of the
effects of long term space travel on the human physiology. And please
cite your sources for peer review, so others can understand and verify
you're information. Now the energy states of any system will change
configuration when you change the surrounding environment, and a mass
induced gravitational force is a different environment creating
different stimuli than small radius spin induced 1g capsule. What you
and others are underestimating is the many adaptations our bodies go
through good or bad upon changing environments. Changing environments
will require the human body to adapt in certain ways, as the reason for
the cited sts-107 research into possible decreases in cerebrospinal
fluid that occurs in microgravity. Now anecdotal discussion of peoples
self diagnosis, or appealing to others authority for this issue does
not take into effect specific effects on the human body such as the
potential decrease cerebrospinal fluid. Long duration habitation for a
crew inside in a spinning capsule (dumbbell shape included) at the
proximity of the "1g" location is not close to the scale of the
earths rotation, thus putting the body through a change to a rather
dynamic system, and therefore assuming the human bodies reaction to
this change would be static, is not logical!

STS-107 press kit page 44
"Understanding Fluid Shifts in the Brain Choroidal Regulation
Involved in the Cerebral Fluid Response to Altered Gravity Fluid
balance and regulation of body fluid production are critical aspects of
life and survival on Earth. In space, without gravity exerting its
usual downward pulling effect, the fluids of the human body shift in an
unnatural, headward direction. After awhile, humans and other mammalian
species adapt to the microgravity environment which leads to changes in
the regulation and distribution
of these body fluids. Previous spaceflight experiments have indicated
that production of fluid in the brain and spinal cord, cerebrospinal
fluid (CSF), might be reduced in rats exposed to microgravity."

pete wrote:
In sci.space.policy, on 20 Oct 2006 10:46:01 -0700,
sez:

` pete wrote:
` In sci.space.policy, on 19 Oct 2006 19:34:09 -0700,
` sez:
`
` ` I have been using the term "gravity" loosely, thank you for the
` ` correction, but the description "small radius spin induced 1g
` ` capsule" does imply the gravity would be an effect of rotation. The
` ` effectively created "gravity" would be a positive result of
` ` rotation, but what negative affects on the human body are created by a
` ` small radius spin induced 1g capsule? Given the fact the gravitational
` ` "force" in a small radius spin induced 1g capsule is not created by
` ` the mass of the earth, it would not be logical assume that both 1g
` ` "forces" mass and spin induced would have the same effects on the
` ` human physiology, as they are inherently different.
`
` So I take it you reject that upstart General Relativity theory, and
` all that "precession of Mercury's orbit accounted for", "light bending
` from the sun's gravity observed" nonsense.
`
` Interesting question, but large masses like you cited (ie planets,
` stars, and the results of stellar explosions) are the cause of the
` large enough strength gravitational fields in the universe that we have
` detected their effect on light (gravitational lensing) and radio waves
` (communications over the sun and planets). Instead the effectively
` created "gravity" from the motion of a small radius spin induced 1g
` capsule is much more comparable to a centrifuge where the particles
` redistribute, separate and stratify themselves within the system, based
` on mass of the particle. Can you cite sources, or show studies that in
` fact demonstrate the similar human physiological responses exist
` between the mass created gravity of earth, and the effectively created
` "gravity" from a small radius spin induced 1g capsule?
` tom

I'm sorry but I think I have to start out by saying that you seem
to be confused about a number of things. Let's see if we can
disassemble your confusion for you, one point at a time.

First of all, yes, if one wants to generate artificial gravity
in space, one does it using rotation, and that is exactly how
a centrifuge works. And yes, "centrifuge" is the name for those
little gadgets biologists use to sort blood cells from serum.
Why would you assemble these disparate facts into the assumption
that someone designing a space-based gravity substitution would
build something which applied enough force to its inhabitants
to separate the components of their blood? This seems to represent
a spectacular degree of silliness. Lab centrifuges spin at rates
which generate huge numbers of gs. A space craft would want to
generate a maximum of 1g. It is probable that some value significantly
less than that, perhaps as little as 10%, might suffice. This
requires much further research; you can bypass that research
by designing for 1g, if you're in a hurry.

Yes, spinning a small object the size of a kindergarten playground
roundabout would cause large coriolis effects if spun for 1g.
This results in considerable physiological distress. Hence, no
one would design a spacecraft g system with such a tiny spin
radius. This is really, really, not rocket science.

Please visit the archives of sci.space.tech to review the many
discussions regarding the best numbers to yield a physiologically
comfortable 1g environment. People who think about putting people
into space for long periods have already spent the time on this
issue, and the net result is that it is not a big problem.
Not trivial, mind you. The larger your rotation diameter the
lower the coriolis forces, but it turns out people are quite
comfortable if rotation is less than 1 rpm (do look at the
archives for the variety of different numbers and studies).
getting 1g at this rate is simple math. The diameter is larger
than you would want to try to contain in an atmosphere environment.
So, you make a dumbbell, with either two atmosphere compartments,
or one plus a counterweight. Managing the tension on the link
between them is a solvable engineering problem, with lots
of different solutions.

There, now you should be all sorted out.

--
================================================== ========================
Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

:
: Interesting "shmass" or mass, once again you have not answered my
: question, demonstrating you're lack of understanding and
: comprehension of the problems associated with humans and long term
: space travel.

What do you think you have demonstrated with that sentence?
The "you're" in particular. Just curious.

More importantly, what problems? You haven't stated any yet.
You keep bringing up problems with fluid balance, and I haven't
seen you bring anything else at all up.

: Dismissing those problems, does not solve them,

And insisting there are problems where there are not doesn't make
space travel any more difficult. Note well: I haven't said there
are no problems. Merely that the ONE problem you are harping on
is, in fact, not a problem. Go on to some other problem.

: The proximity of the "1g" location outward is much closer to the axis
: of rotation in a radius spin induced 1g capsule, than on earth or on
: the space needle

You have yet to say why that matters. Hint: it doesn't matter
for fluid balance, for reasons I've gone over extensively.
It may matter for something else. You haven't said what.

: Dismissing, or trivializing the effects of something for which you
: admittedly don't understand as you have not shown any scientific
: research to validate your opinions,

Uh huh. Suuuuuuure I don't.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

The citation from the sts-107 press kit demonstrates fluid
redistribution in microgravity effects the human physiology in many
ways we do not understand, and therefore you cannot dismiss the
possible effects that a crew will encounter when moving from the 1 g
part of the vessel to locations where there is no artificially created
gravity. Fluid redistribution is just one of the many effects that
adversely affect the human body when traversing between micro gravity,
and 1 g. Because the scale difference between earth, and a small
radius spin induced 1g capsule there are greater effects inside the
capsule on a particles potential energy with respect to the particles
location from the axis of rotation. And because of the scale
difference the particles comprising the human body will have differing
potential energies that vary with distance from the center of rotation.
And because biological processes require specific energies levels from
a molecule, the molecules comprising the human organs, and the
physiological functions those organs perform could be adversely
affected by changing the potential energies of particles within the
human body for long durations, as could possibly happen in a small
radius spin induced 1g capsule. The little understood effects of fluid
redistribution possibly affecting the cerebrospinal fluid in mammals,
is just one example of the many possible adaptations the human body has
to microgravity. Given the little known adaptations mammals have in
microgravity, I think it would be illogical and unwise to dismiss the
fact an artificially created 1g environment induced by spin could have
many many more adaptations with ill effects.
Once again what scientific evidence (ie research, studies not opinions)
do you have that humans can survive in an artificially created 1g
environment induced by spin long enough to travel to local planets?
What potential effects does long term exposure to a small radius spin
induced 1g environment have on the human equilibrium? Can you cite
sources, or show studies that in fact demonstrate the similar human
physiological responses exist between the mass created gravity of
earth, and gravitational "force" in a small radius spin induced 1g
capsule? What specific effects does long term habitation in a in a
small radius spin induced 1g capsule have on the human body, and what
human physiological adaptations does the human body make to such an
environment? And finally how does a small radius spin induced 1g
capsule for long term space flight compare to a human centrifuge?
Tom

Wayne Throop wrote:
:
: Interesting "shmass" or mass, once again you have not answered my
: question, demonstrating you're lack of understanding and
: comprehension of the problems associated with humans and long term
: space travel.

What do you think you have demonstrated with that sentence?
The "you're" in particular. Just curious.

More importantly, what problems? You haven't stated any yet.
You keep bringing up problems with fluid balance, and I haven't
seen you bring anything else at all up.

: Dismissing those problems, does not solve them,

And insisting there are problems where there are not doesn't make
space travel any more difficult. Note well: I haven't said there
are no problems. Merely that the ONE problem you are harping on
is, in fact, not a problem. Go on to some other problem.

: The proximity of the "1g" location outward is much closer to the axis
: of rotation in a radius spin induced 1g capsule, than on earth or on
: the space needle

You have yet to say why that matters. Hint: it doesn't matter
for fluid balance, for reasons I've gone over extensively.
It may matter for something else. You haven't said what.

: Dismissing, or trivializing the effects of something for which you
: admittedly don't understand as you have not shown any scientific
: research to validate your opinions,

Uh huh. Suuuuuuure I don't.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw