World, Writing, Wealth discussion

64 views
The Lounge: Chat. Relax. Unwind. > Astronauts/cosmonauts working conditions

Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (last edited Jul 30, 2016 03:41AM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments In line with Saturday's tradition...
These guys or gals sometimes spend a little under or even over a year in the outer space. While I personally suspected that it might be a way to avoid paying child support, officially they are all claimed to be working -:)
But what kind of working conditions are that?
Why NASA or Roscosmos don't bring spouses to the orbit every once in a while? Where are the astro/cosmonauts unions to intervene?
What do you think?


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Why do you think the spouses signed their astro/cosmonauts in the first place? ;)


message 3: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments Imagine if there was a spat! How do they get out of each other's hair?


message 4: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments You can cool off outside the station -:)


message 5: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments And pray the other one lets you back in :-)


message 6: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments Instant departure unit can also be an option - some space jet ski of a sort


message 7: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments With many plants and jobs relocating to the East, I feel the outer space is being a little neglected.. So much room/space for creating working places there.. 1 space station is a little too scarce. What do you think?


message 8: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments I think that colonizing Mars with today's technology is a bit like the ancient Celts aiming to colonize America. Yes, in principle they could get there, with a lot of wipeouts on the way but do we want to do that with Mars? In my novel "Red Gold", which involved fraud during said colonization, I outlined some of what would be needed, and the ships taking the settlers there had to be monstrous. Just consider all the plants you have to take to make enough oxygen for the settlers to breathe on the trip. Then work out how you grow them in a space ship. Then, to get all this stuff there, you need enormous amounts of energy, which I got around with fusion power, but you also need to gain momentum by ejecting mass at relativistic speeds. We just don't know how to do all the things yet. Then, when you get there, you have to make just abut everything you need from local resources. How? We need a lot more R&D before we are ready for this.


message 9: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments How about spouse visitation rights for the astronauts?


message 10: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin When the cost of bringing to orbit a single kilo is in the thousands of dollars, I hope you didn't marry someone that looks like Nicky Minaj!


message 11: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments My view on cost is it has to come down for space settlement to become viable, however when we look at the costs of computing power we see technical development and a good market can do just that. There are some solutions possible. In a couple of my novels, I propose starting off with electromagnetic acceleration on rails, throw the capsule into the air, then irradiate the front of it from space to form a plasma, and use the magnetohydrodynamic effect to get further acceleration. Subsequent docking would need chemical rockets. Going into space that way would be a real thrill! But it would be a lot cheaper, once you had the energy source in space set up - which I assume is fusion power, which would also power the space ships.


message 12: by Nik (last edited Dec 09, 2017 09:45AM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments Michel wrote: "When the cost of bringing to orbit a single kilo is in the thousands of dollars, I hope you didn't marry someone that looks like Nicky Minaj!"

-:)
Nicki's starring on musical orbit


message 13: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments Ian wrote: "I propose starting off with electromagnetic acceleration on rails, throw the capsule into the air, then irradiate the front of it from space to form a plasma, and use the magnetohydrodynamic effect to get further acceleration. Subsequent docking would need chemical rockets...."

Sounds complex


message 14: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments Yep, got to get more advanced than the bow and arrow to get into space successfully.


message 15: by Michel (last edited Dec 09, 2017 12:17PM) (new)

Michel Poulin I believe that the Virgin Galactic solution, with a small orbiter carried aloft to high altitude by a transporter aircraft before being released, is the ideal solution at the moment: both vehicles are reusable and the cost per kilo sent to orbit way down compared to conventional rockets.


message 16: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments Michel wrote: "I believe that the Virgin Galactic solution, with a small orbiter carried aloft to high altitude by a transporter aircraft before being released, is the ideal solution at the moment: both vehicles ..."

It should be the cheapest option at the moment but I am convinced there will be cheaper better developments, given time.


message 17: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments At least is should be a bug-free environment unless corona made it into space already. With the lockdowns, masks and all, space confinement might look not as restrictive at the moment and the residents might elect to stay a little longer. What do you think?


message 18: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments If coming down meant a hand-shake with Trump, I'd be tempted to stay up there, virus-free :-)


message 19: by J. (new)

J. Gowin | 4358 comments Nik wrote: "At least is should be a bug-free environment unless corona made it into space already. With the lockdowns, masks and all, space confinement might look not as restrictive at the moment and the resid..."

I don't think that someone who spent their entire life in pursuit of one of the very few seats on top of a giant stick of dynamite would think that way.

https://youtu.be/mhpFpHLCuEA


message 20: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6035 comments Watching this video made me think of what Trump said about COVID when he left the hospital. What risks are worth taking? Are you going to hide out and take no risks? How do you accomplish your goals hiding out? Do you let fear control you to the point that you stop living and accomplishing your goals? What kind of person do you want to be? Fearful or fearless?


message 21: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11519 comments There is a difference between being fearless and taking stupid risks.


message 22: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 15759 comments Fear is a component of the self-preservation instinct. It's something to manage, not to succumb or dismiss


message 23: by J. (new)

J. Gowin | 4358 comments Scout wrote: "Watching this video made me think of what Trump said about COVID when he left the hospital. What risks are worth taking? Are you going to hide out and take no risks? How do you accomplish your goal..."

Hadfield's point had two parts:
1.) Accept necessary risks
2.) Figure out how to master those risks

We can't eliminate risk. But we can rationally examine that risk, and modify our behavior accordingly. There is a difference between cowering and minimizing contact with the enemy.


message 24: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6035 comments That makes sense.


back to top