Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 22 2018, @01:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the powered-exoskeleton? dept.

If we wish to colonize another world, finding a planet with a gravitational field that humans can survive and thrive under will be crucial. If its gravity is too strong our blood will be pulled down into our legs, our bones might break, and we could even be pinned helplessly to the ground.

Finding the gravitational limit of the human body is something that's better done before we land on a massive new planet. Now, in a paper published on the pre-print server arXiv, three physicists, claim that the maximum gravitational field humans could survive long-term is four-and-a-half times the gravity on Earth.

Or, at least you could if you are an Icelandic strongman – and Game of Thrones monster – who can walk with more than half a metric ton on your back. For mere mortals, the researchers say, it would need to be a little weaker.

[...] For the maximum gravity at which we could take a step, the team turned to Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, an Icelandic strongman who once walked five steps with a 1430 pound log on his back, smashing a 1,000-year-old record[*].

[*] YouTube video.

What's the Maximum Gravity We Could Survive?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 22 2018, @09:50PM (18 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 22 2018, @09:50PM (#738659) Journal

    Apparently, you haven't read the REST of this discussion. Lots of ideas being thrown out there, some of which may work. The fact is, we don't know if we can put living human beings into other star systems yet. With today's tech, no we can't. As soon as we make a serious attempt to colonize even one other body in our own solar space, we begin to find potentially important ideas for exploring further.

    No one can say what will work, and what will not work, 200 years from now. I'm kinda partial to the generation ship idea. No laws of physics, as we understand them today, need be broken.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday September 22 2018, @10:45PM (17 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Saturday September 22 2018, @10:45PM (#738673) Journal
    "With today's tech, no we can't."

    Nonsense. We had the tech to do it in the 60s.

    The issue is not having the tech to do it. The issue is having the will to commit the resources. And there's been nowhere near that, so far.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 22 2018, @11:54PM (6 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 22 2018, @11:54PM (#738685) Journal

      Yes, and no, to that. Let's just say that 50, 100, or 150 years after we plant our first space colony, the local residents will still be remarking about how stupid the earthmen who first came here were. Necessity being the mother of invention, tech will be invented on the spot, to solve problems that earth dwellers never imagined.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:33AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:33AM (#738701) Journal

        Let's just say that 50, 100, or 150 years after we plant our first space colony, the local residents will still be remarking about how stupid the earthmen who first came here were.

        Won't matter if we plant our colonies in space 50, 100, or 150 years from now.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:55AM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:55AM (#738709) Journal

          I'm not sure we're communicating very well.

          In year XXXX we plant our first colony. In year XXXX +a month or two, the colonists discover an unforseen problem. They solve it. In year XXXX +1 they discover a couple more unforeseen problems, and solve them. In time, these solutions add up to "new technology", some of which would have been pretty useless on earth. That is, they build an entire new body of science, which earthdwellers would not, and in some cases, could not, have found.

          In year XXXX +50, or +100, or whatever, the residents will be looking back, and mocking earth men and early colonists, much as people today mock medieval Europeans. "They were so BACKWARDS!! I'm sure glad I wasn't born then!"

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 23 2018, @04:10AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 23 2018, @04:10AM (#738763) Journal
            Your post was in response to someone who thought we could colonize right now. I thought the context was they'd think we're idiots for moving now rather than down the road.
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:16AM (2 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:16AM (#738733) Journal
        I am not sure if we're understanding each other much better than you and that AC.

        This is what I was referring to, only I'll quote more of it: " The fact is, we don't know if we can put living human beings into other star systems yet. With today's tech, no we can't."

        No one would deny there will be new problems once we get there, for sure. But we developed the necessary technology to put people there and find out many decades ago. Had the political will existed to do it, the project could have been planned before 1970, and even with many delays launched for Alpha Centauri (or wherever, sorry Sid) by now, had there been the political will to do so.

        Does it get easier and more likely as technology improves? Sure. But don't pretend we're waiting for some crucial technology to make it possible. It's already possible, and has been for a long time.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 23 2018, @03:12AM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 23 2018, @03:12AM (#738751) Journal

          Ohhhhh-kay, I think I can see what you're saying, and I can even accept the possibility. But, had we launched a ship to any of the closest stars in 1970, that ship would most likely only be exiting our own solar system, today. It might be near about where the Voyager craft are today, albeit on a different heading. Personally, I can't see us building such a ship on earth, then launching it. Nor do I see us launching the materials into space, then building it. I think it necessary to develop space mining, smelting, forging, and assembly, before we can build such a ship. Whether we are considering a generational ship, or a really fast ship, the ship is going to be massive, and the fuel requirements just as massive.

          We'll have to get up there, before we can start getting things done. The idea of launching an interstellar ship from earth is just a pipe dream, IMO.

          I'll readily give you the point that, if we had launched space mining endeavors in 1970, we would now be 48 years closer to launching an interstellar ship today. For far too long, we've been hung up on that silly space plane, and the ISS. It's time, and past time, to move beyond a shuttle and a low orbit space camp for a privileged few.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 23 2018, @05:08AM

            by Arik (4543) on Sunday September 23 2018, @05:08AM (#738773) Journal
            "Personally, I can't see us building such a ship on earth, then launching it."

            It would be a colossal waste of calories, yes. Much better to build it in orbit, using materials mined from space insofar as possible.

            "I think it necessary to develop space mining, smelting, forging, and assembly, before we can build such a ship."

            Precisely. And we knew that then, and we had the technology then. But not the funding. That would have to wait until we won the cold war.

            So we won the cold war, where's that peace dividend? It could have paid for a full set of HOMEs and plenty of mining startups as well.

            Nope, can't afford space exploration, not possible. (Quick, someone start another war!)

            "I'll readily give you the point that, if we had launched space mining endeavors in 1970, we would now be 48 years closer to launching an interstellar ship today. For far too long, we've been hung up on that silly space plane, and the ISS. It's time, and past time, to move beyond a shuttle and a low orbit space camp for a privileged few."

            Indeed. It's nothing but bread and circuses for the science-loving crowd, and I'm afraid we're not a very important demographic so there isn't even a lot of that.

            We can't claim to have even begun a serious space program while the LaGrange points sit uninhabited.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday September 24 2018, @09:21PM (9 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Monday September 24 2018, @09:21PM (#739411)

      I must disagree. We don't have the technology today to get a colony ship to the nearest star in decades. Probably not even in centuries. You can't just keep making a rocket go faster by loading it with more propellant - the rocket equation means you get diminishing returns, and an effective top speed based on the propellant's specific impulse.

      Nor do we have a good enough understanding of managing a closed ecosystem to keep the colonists and their ecosystem alive for hundreds, maybe thousands of years between stars with no possibility of getting any additional supplies. Heck, we haven't even managed to do it for a few years yet. Nor are we even remotely close to having the hibernation or cryogenics technology for "sleeper ships" that could avoid those problems.

      Alternate drive technologies could shorten the trip to something potentially manageable, with nuclear-powered ion drives probably the most promising technology, but we still don't have ion drives up to the task, though we have some promising things in the lab. Nor are we anywhere close to having the sort of ridiculously high-powered lasers that could accelerate a light-sail anywhere near hard enough to reach interstellar speeds before it was too far away to maintain focus.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 25 2018, @04:31AM (8 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 25 2018, @04:31AM (#739545) Journal
        "We don't have the technology today to get a colony ship to the nearest star in decades. "

        Arrival within decades was not one of the specified parameters, you can't just tack on extra requirements afterwards.

        "Probably not even in centuries."

        No, definitely within centuries. With 1970s tech, it would be ~300 years to Alpha Centauri. If the project had been funded and planned back then, likely improvements available before completion would have reduced it to ~100 years, possibly even less.

        "Nor do we have a good enough understanding of managing a closed ecosystem to keep the colonists and their ecosystem alive for hundreds, maybe thousands of years between stars with no possibility of getting any additional supplies. "

        To the degree that's true it's simply because we have NOT been working on a project where we would have gained that experience.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:08PM (7 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:08PM (#739671)

          My point was that we don't have the technology to keep people alive for the duration of the voyage. Not today, and definitely not in the 70s.

          And sure, *if* we had started seriously developing the technology in the 70s, *maybe* we'd have it ready today. But that dioesn't change the fact that the technology doesn't yet exist, and thus we couldn't then, and still can't today, establish an interstellar colony. Rocketry is the easy part.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:29PM (6 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:29PM (#739686) Journal
            "My point was that we don't have the technology to keep people alive for the duration of the voyage. Not today, and definitely not in the 70s."

            I guess that's a fundamental disagreement then. I think you're simply wrong. We knew how to do it then and we certainly know how to do it now. ANY time you do something new of course there are things you will only learn by doing, so you can ALWAYS say that you lack the technology to do ANYTHING new by that standard.

            If that's your standard then by that standard you're right, I just don't think it's a useful standard.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:37PM (4 children)

              by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:37PM (#739937)

              No, we *don't* know how to do it now. When it comes to managing complex closed ecosystems all we have is theory, and even that still has serious known gaps in it - and who knows how many unknown ones. As the saying goes "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." Technology is what you get after you've distilled theory to practice.

              The few attempts we've made at managing closed ecosystems have ended badly within a couple years. Had we launched a colony ship in the 70s it wouldn't have exited the solar system yet, and the colonists would likely already mostly be dead.

              • (Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday September 26 2018, @01:28AM (3 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 26 2018, @01:28AM (#739981) Journal
                The details you're talking about are the things you work out by practice. The reason we don't know them is simply because we haven't been practicing. Not because we lack any necessary technology to do so, just because we haven't.

                Again, with our actual timeline of technology, we could easily have 40 years of experience with long-term space habitations, more than enough time to work out the details of engineering and practice that are always lacking when you start to apply a new technology.

                I didn't suggest launching an interstellar colony ship in the 70s, I suggested *planning* and *commencing* the project to produce it as early as that decade.

                That's not something you just do in one stage. First you need HOMEs, and then... well it doesn't matter. We still haven't gotten to step 1, but not because we lacked any essential technology.

                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:08PM (2 children)

                  by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:08PM (#740185)

                  I think we have a disagreement over what the word technology means. I say it's not just the hardware - you're right that we had the necessary hardware. It's *also* the practical knowledge (both beyond and preceding theory) on how to do a thing. Democracy is a social technology. Irrigation is an agricultural technology. Managing a closed ecosystem is a bio-ecological technology - one that we don't have, and that we'd need a lot of practice to develop.

                  We absolutely could have started building space habitats in the 70s if we had the will. But there's a lot of decades developing ecological technologies, not to mention orbital manufacturing technologies, before we would be anywhere close to ready to start building an interstellar ark.

                  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:50PM (1 child)

                    by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 26 2018, @02:50PM (#740221) Journal
                    I think you're right, we're using the words differently for some reason.

                    To me, we had the tech - we had all the necessary pieces to get it going. The stuff you're talking about, the experience, well the only way you get that is by doing. And we just haven't been doing.

                    "We absolutely could have started building space habitats in the 70s if we had the will. But there's a lot of decades developing ecological technologies, not to mention orbital manufacturing technologies, before we would be anywhere close to ready to start building an interstellar ark."

                    Only way to know would be to go, but I suspect "decades" might even be an exaggeration. For sure, though, it's a stage that we could have passed by now, but one we still have to start at this point.
                    --
                    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:19AM

                      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:19AM (#740614)

                      The Wright brothers had all the necessary pieces to build an aircraft - but you wouldn't want to try to cross the Atlantic in the plane they first flew from Kitty Hawk. You need some steps in between to work the inevitable kinks out of the system, optimize, etc. They didn't have the tech for the job - they only had the beginnings of the tech, it took another 25 years to develop it to the point where someone managed to cross the Atlantic.

                      I think you're grossly underestimating the complexity of managing a closed ecology complex enough to support us. I don't forsee any serious problems in building off-world ecologies. A rough start for sure, but I don't think there'll be any insurmountable problems, primarily because they'll have relatively easy access to whatever ecological supplements they discover they need (mineral and/or biological). However, I don't think we will have even discovered all the problems, much less solved them, in only a few decades. And I doubt anyone will even be seriously *thinking* about closed ecologies - they'll be importing resources at a breakneck speed as they grow.

                      An interstellar voyage is just far too expensive to even consider launching before you've got every last detail hammered out. Just the raw kinetic energy required is E= 1/2*m*(10%*300,000,000m/s)^2 = 4.5x10^14J/kg = 125GWh/kg. For an 80kg average American, that's about 10TWh of kinetic energy in their body - without any supporting ship, or any losses to the hideous inefficiencies of existing propulsion systems. About 1/1,000th of annual global energy consumption. And you probably want to add at least two or three zeros to the end of that if you're using any existing propulsion system- at which point you're taking the entire annual global energy consumption to accelerate one person ('s frozen corpse) to interstellar speeds. Multiply that by enough people to make a viable colony (at least a few hundred, assuming lots of frozen gametes to reintroduce genetic diversity at the other end) , plus enough ship and ecology to keep them alive for many decades of interstellar travel (the ISS masses about 100,000kg per person, with no attempt at being self sufficient), PLUS - and this is where it gets REALLY bad - enough energy and propellant to do the same exact maneuver in reverse to stop at the remote star, with no external infrastructure. That probably adds at least a couple more zeros right there.

                      So, call it imparting probably many millions, maybe billions of times annual global energy consumption to something, for a minimally viable colony ship. Not something to do lightly. You want to be *sure* those colonists reach their destination alive and healthy. And you need a massively larger energy-base than anything this planet has ever seen.

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:41PM

              by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 25 2018, @11:41PM (#739940)

              Oh, and as for

              >ANY time you do something new of course there are things you will only learn by doing

              Absolutely. And we need a lot of time doing, with access to additional resources to fix our mistakes, before we'll have the mature technology required to survive the decades or centuries journey through the void to another star. Had we started seriously building off-world settlements in the 70s, we might have the technology today. But we didn't have it then, and we still don't have it now.