[extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?

[The Avantguardian]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Would 
> > > they be able to hack the training?. I have a
> feeling that it might
> > not 
> > > be a good idea to subject a dwarf to 6g or
> whatever they do in
> > those 
> > > centrifuges.

I disagree with the dwarf idea. I mean I would not
stop a dwarf that wanted to be an astronaut, but I
wouldn't engineer them for space travel. There are
admittedly some advantages to being small in space,
there are lots of disadvantages as well. Mass has
usefulness.

Unless the mass of crew is a significant issue for
feul economy purposes, in which case you are probably
better off sending unmanned probes until you get a
better propulsion system, then I think normal sized
astronauts or even large ones would be more "stable"
at 0g. 

If one is going to engineer astronauts, I say give
them more DNA repair enzymes for radiation resistance,
an anaerobic alternative glycolysis pathway like
yeast, and the wood chuck's hibernation or the
hummingbird's torpor. That way they would only consume
life-support at significant levels when they were
awake and working. But the best solution is to pack a
mini-ecosystem in the spaceship so the waste gets
recycled during "naps" and there are always supplies
when the astronauts wake up. During a long
interstellar trip, I think sleeping giants would be
more efficient than bored dwarves.  
 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com