,

{}

ul
-->

But is that healthy?
Surely healthier than 100% of your day in 0-G.
But I agree, it will be interesting to find out if its proportional.

Regards,

Mike Combs

It occurs to me that we also have no data on what happens to a person who cycles back and forth over a course of hours from full- to low- to zero-G.

Our standard version of a person living in a habitat is a construction worker who spends eight hours each day working in weightlessness and returning to full simulated gravity each day.

Or perhaps a high school student who spends eight hours a day in school, school lunch, and getting to and from school, all of it in full simulated gravity, only to also head into low- or zero-G several times a week for sports, recreation, or community service
(life guard at low-G barrel pool?).

But is that healthy?

|

I fully expect there will be no "workers" in free fall and outside the habitat...that's what we'll use tele-operated robots for,,,and the lack of these in the SyFy show "The Expanse" is my biggest single complaint about that show...

But is that healthy? Surely healthier than 100% of your day in 0-G. But I agree, it will be interesting to find out if its proportional. Regards,
It occurs to me that we also have no data on what happens to a person who cycles back and forth over a course of hours from full- to low- to zero-G.

Our standard version of a person living in a habitat is a construction worker who spends eight hours each day working in weightlessness and returning to full simulated gravity each day.

Or perhaps a high school student who spends eight hours a day in school, school lunch, and getting to and from school, all of it in full simulated gravity, only to also head into low- or zero-G several times a week for sports, recreation, or community service (life guard at low-G barrel pool?).

But is that healthy?