 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / March 2008Fat Astronauts - why not?
Why is it that astronauts have to be so fit. they are only enduring high g stress for minutes on a mission. is a few minutes of 3g stress going to kill someone if they are carrying extra weight? couldnt they be trained in a centrifuge to deal with it? i ca undertand the pilots being impacted but not the MS's. > Why is it that astronauts have to be so fit. they are only enduring > high g stress for minutes on a mission. is a few minutes of 3g stress > going to kill someone if they are carrying extra weight? couldnt they > be trained in a centrifuge to deal with it? i ca undertand the pilots > being impacted but not the MS's. 1. Cost of sending the mass to orbit. 2. there is no centrifuge training anymore and anyways, "training" wouldn't reduce the risks associated with the extra weight 3. Also the selection criteria weeds out overweight people. Not directly, but by the other qualities they are looking for: driven, overachieving, health conscience etc charliexmurphy wrote: >> Why is it that astronauts have to be so fit. they are only enduring >> high g stress for minutes on a mission. is a few minutes of 3g stress [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 1. Cost of sending the mass to orbit. How much more does it cost to send a 120 kg as opposed to a 80 kg astronaut? > 2. there is no centrifuge training anymore and anyways, "training" > wouldn't reduce the risks associated with the extra weight What, exactly, are these risks you speak of, if the "fatty" in question is otherwise healthy? > 3. Also the selection criteria weeds out overweight people. Not > directly, but by the other qualities they are looking for: driven, > overachieving, health conscience etc You mean "jocks". I know fat people who are *very* driven in the things they do, don't you? In other words: prejudices. It's hard to get rid of them. And you miswrote "conscious". I would have almost asked if you think fat people do not have a conscience... >> 2. there is no centrifuge training anymore and anyways, "training" >> wouldn't reduce the risks associated with the extra weight > >What, exactly, are these risks you speak of, if the "fatty" in question >is otherwise healthy? There's no such thing. Those who claim otherwise are deluding themselves. Brian >>> 2. there is no centrifuge training anymore and anyways, "training" >>> wouldn't reduce the risks associated with the extra weight [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There's no such thing. Those who claim otherwise are deluding > themselves. That has become the prevalent belief, yes. But it is mistaken. Truth is, a man of average height can be about 20 to 30 kg above "ideal" weight and still be very healthy. He won't probably be running marathons with that weight, or climb mountains. But not everyone is interested in activities like that. We are not talking about the "morbidly obese" here (the 400 lbs cases). I'm a bit of a bicyclist, so that shapes my perspective. I honestly believe that as long as a person is able to ride a bicycle for at least a couple of hours, without getting tired, they are probably physically fit enough to sit in a chair while being rocketed into orbit. It's not like they have to do a lot of things during the ride, and up there, of course, zero-g will be the great equaliser. >I honestly >believe that as long as a person is able to ride a bicycle for at least a >couple of hours, without getting tired, they are probably physically fit >enough to sit in a chair while being rocketed into orbit. It's not like >they have to do a lot of things during the ride, and up there, of course, >zero-g will be the great equaliser. I don't think the issue is "can an overweight person fly in space?" The answer is clearly yes. But the initial argument, at least the way I read it, was "Why doesn't NASA have overweight astronauts?" Its because training astronauts takes a lot of time and money (we can argue whether they all need this training or whether we need so many of them, but that is secondary to this question) and NASA wants to get as much out of that investment as possible. An overweight person is more likely to become ill with one malady or another than a average-weight-for-height person. The medical community is nearly unanimous on this point. If NASA gets to choose, they will always choose the person closer to average weight, not someone who is starting out already 20 lbs. overweight and that much closer to developing a medical ailment than the "healthy" person. Brian >>I honestly >>believe that as long as a person is able to ride a bicycle for at least [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > answer is clearly yes. But the initial argument, at least the way I read > it, was "Why doesn't NASA have overweight astronauts?" OK. > Its because training astronauts takes a lot of time and money (we can > argue whether they all need this training or whether we need so many of > them, but that is secondary to this question) I think it is quite central to the question. > and NASA wants to get as much out of that investment as possible. > > An overweight person is more likely to become ill with one malady or > another than a average-weight-for-height person. The medical community > is nearly unanimous on this point. Is it? Seriously overweight people are of course at higher risk for cardiovascular problems, diabetes and such. But such conditions do not develop in just a few days. If someone is healthy at the moment of launch, I think it is as likely they will be healthy during the mission as it is for other "passengers". Space sickness excluded, but that happens to the best of them or so I heard. > If NASA gets to choose, they will always choose the person closer to > average weight, not someone who is starting out already 20 lbs. > overweight and that much closer to developing a medical ailment than > the "healthy" person. They all get checkups, right? Even the more athletic ones could have hidden health problems. > >>I honestly > >>believe that as long as a person is able to ride a bicycle for at least [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > They all get checkups, right? Even the more athletic ones could have > hidden health problems. It is the mental makeup of the person that NASA wants. And overweight people don't fit, not because of their weight but their personality traits > Is it? Seriously overweight people are of course at higher risk for > cardiovascular problems, diabetes and such. But such conditions do not > develop in just a few days. If someone is healthy at the moment of > launch, I think it is as likely they will be healthy during the mission > as it is for other "passengers". If it takes 7 to 10 years between the time an astronaut is hired and the time he/she is scheduled for a flight, during this time, NASA will have invested a LOT of money into that astronaut for training (not just his/her salary, but also use of all the facilities, and the people who train them). If during this time, the astronaut's health degrades to a point where he/she is no longer flight worthy, that investment becomes wasted to a large extent. (that person might still be of use on the ground). >> An overweight person is more likely to become ill with one malady or >> another than a average-weight-for-height person. The medical community [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >launch, I think it is as likely they will be healthy during the mission >as it is for other "passengers". You misunderstand me. Let me try again... NASA does not see the astronaut corps as a "one mission" group. They see them as career astronauts. Consider it like West Point or Annapolis. They only want the best, and they want them to go on to be Generals and Admirals. Sure, a lot won't get that far, some will even come down with a fatal disease, but West Point and Annapolis set out to make Generals and Admirals, not just a soldier or sailor for the next mission. NASA wants as much productivity out of their astronauts as they can get, both in space and on Earth. Their big investment in "making an astronaut" is not for a single flight. They want someone who will still be productive 10 or 20 years from now. An overweight astronaut today is much less likely to be as productive 20 years from now as a normal weight astronaut. There are always exceptions, but NASA looks at the statistics. The statistics are clear on the future health of currently overweight people. Brian > You misunderstand me. Let me try again... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > at the statistics. The statistics are clear on the future health of > currently overweight people. It goes beyond what NASA wants. It's how many people they have applying for such a limited number of jobs. They can *afford* to pick the best of the best because for every one astronaut training position that opens up, there are literally thousands of applicants. They pick the best of the best because they *can*. Similarly, West Point and Annapolis are in the same boat. People want to go there because they *know* that only the best get to go there. So, you get a lot of applicants to choose from and you only pick the best of the best to attend. Jeff  SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >>>> 2. there is no centrifuge training anymore and anyways, "training" >>>> wouldn't reduce the risks associated with the extra weight [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with that weight, or climb mountains. But not everyone is interested in > activities like that. They won't become NASA astronauts either. A lot of activities astronauts engage in are very physical in nature. For starters, launch loads of 3 G's aren't trivial. EVA's are very strenuous. Even physically fit astronauts have to exercise their hands a lot in order to be fit enough to perform EVA's. And then there is the training. One could argue that NASA goes a bit "overboard" with training, but it is what it is. The bottom line is that this is a highly sought after job, so if you want to land a job as a career NASA astronaut, you've got to be physically fit to beat out the competition during the selection process. > We are not talking about the "morbidly obese" here (the 400 lbs cases). > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they have to do a lot of things during the ride, and up there, of course, > zero-g will be the great equaliser. We had a few astronauts fly who might fit that description. But they generally weren't career NASA astronauts either. They were people flown as passengers sometimes only for political and/or foreign policy reasons. One of the Russians we flew on a shuttle/Mir flight definitely fit the description of being quite a bit above his ideal weight. At the time there was a lot of discussion in these groups whether or not he was a career cosmonaut or more of a manager type person who just wanted to fly. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > charliexmurphy wrote: > >> Why is it that astronauts have to be so fit. they are only enduring [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How much more does it cost to send a 120 kg as opposed to a 80 kg > astronaut? 120kg is not fat > > 2. there is no centrifuge training anymore and anyways, "training" > > wouldn't reduce the risks associated with the extra weight > > What, exactly, are these risks you speak of, if the "fatty" in question > is otherwise healthy? Define a fat healthy person? No such thing > > 3. Also the selection criteria weeds out overweight people. Not > > directly, but by the other qualities they are looking for: driven, > > overachieving, health conscience etc > > You mean "jocks". Wrong. They aren't jocks. Nerds are not jocks > I know fat people who are *very* driven in the things they do, don't you? yes, it is called eating. In reality, no. I don't any fat who are very driven in life (not just a few things) > In other words: prejudices. It's hard to get rid of them. wrong. No preju > And you miswrote "conscious". I would have almost asked if you think fat > people do not have a conscience... charliexmurphy wrote: [..] >> How much more does it cost to send a 120 kg as opposed to a 80 kg >> astronaut? > > 120kg is not fat Most people would disagree. I have even heard people say that an adult male of 1.80 m is "overweight" at 80 kg. Ridiculous. > charliexmurphy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Most people would disagree. not for 76 inches >I have even heard people say that an adult > male of 1.80 m is "overweight" at 80 kg. Ridiculous. Most people aren't medical experts >> charliexmurphy wrote: >> [..] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > not for 76 inches That would make a BMI of 32 if my math is correct. Definitely fat!! Signatureth > charliexmurphy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Most people would disagree. I have even heard people say that an adult > male of 1.80 m is "overweight" at 80 kg. Ridiculous. If you can't send a pound of payload because you have a pound of astronaut, it costs $10000/lb to launch, according to published estimates. I'm surprised they don't screen for smaller people. It's not like they don't have enough applicants. One astronaut went to Russia and trained for a while before they figured out he was too tall to fit in a Soyuz. Mike Ross > 120kg is not fat If my math is right, that's 264 lbs. At my (a bit less than average) height that's 100 pounds over the lower limit of "overweight" according to my doctor's charts. I know because I'm about 170 lbs and he's told me that I'm over the lower limit of "overweight" and wants me to modify my diet and exercise more. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >Why is it that astronauts have to be so fit. they are only enduring >high g stress for minutes on a mission. is a few minutes of 3g stress >going to kill someone if they are carrying extra weight? couldnt they >be trained in a centrifuge to deal with it? i ca undertand the pilots >being impacted but not the MS's. Because they also have to be capable of executing various emergency egress procedures, etc... Launch stresses are only te half of it. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>Why is it that astronauts have to be so fit. Would the shuttle hatches (notably the airlock/docking to station) be a concern with fatter people not fitting through ? Once fitted with EVA suit or even ascent/entry suit, how obese would someone have to be to not fit through those hatches ? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.