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.

Why is it that astronauts have to be so fit.

On Mar 20, 1:04 pm, "dabol...@gmail.com" <dabol...@gmail.com> 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
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:
On Mar 20, 1:04 pm, "dabol...@gmail.com" <dabol...@gmail.com> 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
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.

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?

On 21 Mar 2008 20:04:36 GMT, nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:


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.

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.

charliexmurphy wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:04 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> 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.

On Mar 21, 4:04 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:

How much more does it cost to send a 120 kg as opposed to a 80 kg
astronaut?

120kg is not fat

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 21 Mar 2008 23:33:54 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:

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?"

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.

On Mar 22, 10:38 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
charliexmurphy wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:04 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> 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.

not for 76 inches

On 21 Mar 2008 23:33:54 GMT, nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:

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.

charliexmurphy wrote:

On Mar 21, 4:04 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> 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.