IDMclean Posted July 4, 2006 Report Posted July 4, 2006 I have read in a few places about using a fluid enviroment for space travel it has a number of disadvantages but it's advantages, to me, clearly out pace the traditional Air Enviroment of modern day Space craft. I admit that the bio-engineering of it, to get Equalibriums just right would be daunting, as would the designing of the ship itself for such an enviroment. However, Air won't give you the resistance liquid will. A liquid (not-water, but fluid preferably that oxidizes the lungs and doesn't make you all wrinkly) enviroment will provide resistance, you litterally have to swim around the ship, which will help with the exercise regime that one would have to keep for such a trip. Also in the case that the fluid servers the purpose of breathing enviroment it will cause you to breath deeply and evenly. I know there is a lot of attachment to our air enviroment, but it's not looking fesible in space. An air Enviro doesn't give the same advantages that a Fluid one does. No need for artificial Gravity for a Fluid Enviroment. Any other types to address these problems? Star Troubles Quote
Boerseun Posted July 4, 2006 Report Posted July 4, 2006 I think the point is moot. There might be loads of benefits, but the added weight you'll have to lug into space kinda makes it impractical. Besides, the only benefit would be for high-g maneouvers, which normally are brief because of fuel constraints. Quote
Jay-qu Posted July 4, 2006 Report Posted July 4, 2006 well to continue this conversation... :hihi: Imagine trying to breathe in and out a liquid as dense as water, your lungs wouldnt cope, no matter how much 'exercises' you do. Quote
Boerseun Posted July 4, 2006 Report Posted July 4, 2006 Yes... back on topic. Seen the movie "The Abyss"? I seem to recall some sort of fluid they had to breathe to withstand high pressure in deep water. The upside in breathing a fluid medium, I think, would be that you could breathe a lot less for the same oxygen intake, provided the mix contains a lot of the stuff. Seeing as its a lot denser, it might just be possible. I don't know. But, bottom line - our lungs were made to exchange gas in a gas medium. Else we'd have gills. I guess... Quote
UncleAl Posted July 4, 2006 Report Posted July 4, 2006 The only fluids with a chance for dissolving enough oxygen/volume to keep a human going are silicone oil and fluorocarbon ether oils. Lungs will blow out from the effort of moving enough fluid. Liquid breathers have gills. Your body is a terrible mess for shedding moisture, dead skin cells, and hair. Your gastrointestinal tract is a avid gas producer. It will not accept being filled wth water-immiscible fluids. What did sucrose polyester do to consumers? Do you want to breathe that in? Do you want to be breathing the stuff that leaches out from your electronics? Your eyes are protected by aqueous tears, meibomian lipid over the tears, and mucin over the conjunctiva under the tears. None of that will be happy given prolonged immersion. The added weight for a fluid-filled spaceship is ridiculous. Quote
Boerseun Posted July 4, 2006 Report Posted July 4, 2006 True, Unc. I imagine if you were living in a fluid medium, you'd wanna box the first bastard who peed in the pool! You have to breathe the stuff! And then farting, which makes water acidic...:shrug: Nah - gimme air any time. Quote
IDMclean Posted July 5, 2006 Author Report Posted July 5, 2006 Well you don't have to fill the whol ship, you could do pod type things for brief High rate Acceleration, if nessessary. Obviously the fluid would have to be scrubbed periodically(continiously), just like air. Of course you would have to keep very clean, but that has to go on anyway. Though you have some very valid points. What other methods would you purpose for long term (5 Years - 100 Years +) space trips? Like I said I am very dubious about air enviroments being ultimately feasible without some extreame engineering feats of the Sci-Fi purportion. To transport colonist, I am not talking small like exploration vessels either. I am talking ships which will house people for generations so that we can get to other systems(nearest one I know of, Alpha centauri, 4.6 Light years.). Quote
Jay-qu Posted July 5, 2006 Report Posted July 5, 2006 What good will it do you been in a liquid medium for 5 years.. that would mess you up - also what do you do while your in there, be a tad on the boring side Quote
EWright Posted July 5, 2006 Report Posted July 5, 2006 and what would you eat in this environment? fish? and no cooked meals on this 100 year plus voyage? :eek: perhaps we can bioengineer amphibious humanoids to take the voyage and report back. :D Quote
IDMclean Posted July 5, 2006 Author Report Posted July 5, 2006 Well I figure it either that or. 1) We don't go anywhere, but send seed ships manned by machines to develop human colonist on a suitable planet from stored DNA, AKA ArK Ships. 2) We re-engineer ( not all of) ourselves via genetic, or mechanical augementation. To be more adapted for the rigors of long term space voyages. 3) We shed the Bio-shell, and become machines. There are other alternatives, I think, but I have not thought about them yet. This thread is not just for the fluid enviro that I suggest, but for other methods of suriviving, and thriving in deep space operations for extended periods of time. Quote
Jay-qu Posted July 5, 2006 Report Posted July 5, 2006 I always liked the idea of shifting a humans mind into a computer, go no idea how it could even be possible (maybe it just isnt) but if we ever worked it out it could be a safe place to ride the ship from. Quote
CraigD Posted July 5, 2006 Report Posted July 5, 2006 Well I figure it either that or. 1) We don't go anywhere, but send seed ships manned by machines…You left out suffusing our tissues with ferro-magentic chemicals, and supporting individual cells with precisely maintained magnetic fields :hyper: Seriously (and at the risk of boring readers by repeating myself) I don’t think the need to withstand high accelerations is likely to be significance in designing long-range manned spacecraft. The immediate problem of having enough impulse to reach practical velocities at any acceleration, and the eventual problem of withstanding or avoiding high-speed collisions with interstellar matter appear much more significant. Assuming that ordinary, live human beings will be on board such spacecraft, I think that designers will seek to produce an environment close to Earth normal atmosphere, gravity, lighting, etc. Quote
IDMclean Posted July 6, 2006 Author Report Posted July 6, 2006 I'm not just talking about prolonged acceleration periods, where one will have 4+ gs against you for litterally years, but also the issues of zero-g. In my opinion we will not be developing any kind of practical artifical Gravity enivorment in this century. If ever. There are other issues, and most of them not practical interms of Long term exposure to the space enviroment. Humans are made to live here on the planet's surface and eat the foods that we do. In space this is allot more difficult. One has to worry about bone degeneration, fine particals. Like for instance, in the Prophesy designs we have an open body of water, which would never happen on a real space ship, it's a serious hazard should the rings ever stop (or reduce) their spinning. Do you know what happens to water when there is zero g to force it together? Also it's small things also that are impractical in most space ship designs, like a kitchen sink. Space travel is going to be different if at all. I have serious doubts as to our capability to do interstellar travel. Most of what we have on the table right now is impractical and/or improbable. Rockets are not going to get us to Alpha Centauri let alone any other extra-solar body. Air has done us well here and now, but I don't think it will be ultimately practical for space. Quote
Rebiu Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 I seem to recall something about people existing in a fluid environment for the first nine months of their lives. Quote
Boerseun Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 I seem to recall something about people existing in a fluid environment for the first nine months of their lives.Which might, of course, explain why new-born babies are so incredibly unhappy. The very first thing they want to do is to complain with Management about their 9-month aquatic incarceration, which was not only wholly unfair, but also incredibly soggy. Quote
Jay-qu Posted October 16, 2006 Report Posted October 16, 2006 perhaps they are complaining about been removed from it :eek_big: they had everything they needed in there, didnt even have to eat or breathe from themselves, nice and warm.. Quote
GAHD Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 So this is turning towards everlasting hemodialysis and IV feeding/breathing in a warm fluid environment? Well, that certainly makes for an interesting sci-fi story idea, especially if said fluid *is* your reaction-mass. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.