Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Now, More Pleasing Odor!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                             

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Womanned mission to Venus

Men go to Mars, women go to Venus
  (+30, -5)(+30, -5)(+30, -5)
(+30, -5)
  [vote for,
against]

There is a lot of talk and research activity concerning a manned mission to Mars, which is supposed to happen eventually. The plan would of course be to send either men or a mixed crew to land on Mars, spend some time there and return to Earth. Mars symbolises masculinity, and going to Mars is therefore a "manly" thing to do.

This is probably quite a sexist thing to think, but it made me wonder what a "womanly" mission to another planet would be like, and besides the sexist overtones, actually it seems to make quite a lot of sense. Rather than trying to send men to land on Mars, why not send women to the upper atmosphere of Venus? Venus is closer than Mars and also easier to reach because it is closer to the sun and there is therefore less need to push against its gravity. I am aware that it isn't a question of travelling the thirty million odd kilometres between the orbit of the Earth and that of Venus, but nor is it a matter of crossing the sixty million odd kilometres between us and Mars. It's actually a lot further than that.

There are several clear advantages in sending women to Venus rather than men to Mars:

Women tend to be smaller and lighter than men. A woman with a body mass index of twenty and average American stature would weigh fifty-two kilogrammes and require twenty-two percent fewer calories than an average man of the same BMI. Moreover, the actual energy requirement could be lower because it would be easier to warm the environment to a temperature which would lead to lower energy consumption Less less fuel would be needed, the spacecraft can be slightly smaller, they wouldn't need as much oxygen, water or food and they would produce less faeces, urine and carbon dioxide, so the total biomass needed would be lower. There might be less conflict between a crew of women than a mixed or all-male one, although this could be me being prejudiced again.

Since the mission would be to Venus, more radiation would be available than towards Mars, making it easier to use solar power and also to support photosynthesis. Food would therefore be easier to grow and less energy would need to be generated on the spacecraft itself. At the orbit of Venus, the radiation of the sun would be ninety percent higher than the orbit of the Earth, and almost five times that at the orbit of Mars.

The flight would be shorter because Venus is both closer and its orbit is inside ours. This means that fewer resources are needed and that psychological problems would be less severe as well as physiological effects from weightlessness and radiation. It seems to take around six months to get to Mars and only four and a half to get to Venus. On reaching Venus, the crew would encounter a planet whose gravity is close to that of our planet's, giving them time to recuperate under near-normal gravitational conditions, whereas going to Mars would mean longer periods of weightlessness with an intermediate period of gravity far lower than ours. This also makes sense given the greater risk of osteoporosis arising from lower bone density. In this respect, men are more suited to going to Mars and women to going to Venus.

On reaching Venus, rather than landing, which would be impossible using today's technology, a plane could be launched into the upper atmosphere to cruise at an altitude where the temperature is comparable to that at the surface of the Earth, and the pressure would also be much lower than at ground level. The atmospheric pressure is at roughly one bar at a height of fifty kilometres, and is below boiling point at sea level from around forty-five kilometres up. If an airship were used, the fuel consumption would be very low. At the end of the period in the planet's atmosphere, the gas envelope could be discarded and the craft could fly higher until it eventually reached orbit and docked with the main ship. The design challenges for this sort of planetary mission would be lower than a Martian mission where the crew remained on the surface for a long time, since fewer consumables would need to be taken. It would also be less important for them to remain at the planet for as long because fewer resources and time would have been invested in the mission. Since the Venusian upper atmosphere takes four days to go round the planet, it would also be possible for a human crew to tour the entire planet passively, which would not be plausible on Mars. It is also much easier to fly in a dense atmosphere like that of Venus than a thin one like the Martian atmosphere.

The fact that the Venusian atmosphere is denser than the Martian one and contains sulphur compounds could also be an advantage. Rather than having to take all the raw materials needed with them, some could be gathered from the atmosphere itself. The carbon dioxide could be used by blue-green algae and the sulphur could eventually be used in amino acids after conversion.

Finally, communications would be easier because much of the time the ship would be closer to the rest of us than one on its way to Mars would be.

The next mission could be to send hermaphrodites to Mercury, which would be a really good idea for some reason.
nineteenthly, Jul 13 2005

(??) The Good Ship Venus http://www.turoks.n...o/GoodShipVenus.htm
Sounds like a fun mission :) [Minimal, Jul 13 2005]

JP Aerospace's site http://www.jpaerospace.com/
They want to fly balloons to space, so do the reverse. [MisterQED, Jul 05 2008]

Video version of this idea with prettyish animations and pictures http://www.youtube....ndex=1&feature=plcp
Womanned mission to Venus [nineteenthly, Oct 11 2012]

So, the travel accomadations remain a challenge, but the real problem is the campsite when you get there... http://en.wikipedia.../Atmosphere_of_Mars
[normzone, Oct 12 2012]

Moons of Jupiter http://www.youtube....watch?v=Qhy6SZf_3Gk
Scruffy the Cat - best played loud... [normzone, Mar 01 2013]

Musk's Mars Proposal http://www.space.co...rs-colony-ship.html
[theircompetitor, Sep 27 2016]

Reasons to wear different types of clothes, or none, on spaceships (though generation ships, which this isn't) https://worldbuildi...rational-ships-wear
Mentioned in my anno [notexactly, Oct 03 2016]

dark patches on venus https://earthsky.or...cting-venus-climate
[theircompetitor, Sep 03 2019]

[link]






       //There might be less conflict between a crew of women than a mixed or all-male one, although this could be me being prejudiced again.//

Yes, That is you being prejudiced. Are you saying that women never fight and bitch? Or that they only do it when men are around?

A good idea, and well thought through..Bun[+}.
Minimal, Jul 13 2005
  

       That may be so, [Minimal]. Thanks for the +.
nineteenthly, Jul 13 2005
  

       To boldly go where no woman has gone before...How about we send them to the Gamma quadrant?
DrCurry, Jul 13 2005
  

       Well-written, logical and has an airship. +
baconbrain, Jul 13 2005
  

       ... and made into a reality TV series?
Minimal, Jul 13 2005
  

       Judging by the "space nudity protocol", yes, there would be a very slight case for them to be naked, which is increased by the number of changes of clothes astronauts would take with them. Also, the temperature problem with this mission would be cooling rather than maintaining heat, and there would be slightly less need to cool if they wore no clothes. However, this would be disappointing for all the people with space wear fetishes , which is unfair. Doing it as a reality TV show might help with funding, but there would probably be a lot of floating black rectangles involved. Also, you wouldn't want it to be like Big Brother, would you? Evictions?
Actually, does anyone know if there's a practical reason for wearing clothes on board a spaceship? Assuming they were heterosexual, would there be any good reason for them?
nineteenthly, Jul 13 2005
  

       What [baconbrain] said.
wagster, Jul 13 2005
  

       My understanding was that Venus is pretty much hell.
theircompetitor, Jul 13 2005
  

       I think the surface is 500F and the atmosphere is concentrated sulphuric acid, and the rocks are made of Vagina Jam, or something...

I know some women I would be happy to recommend for this mission...(And some men too, lets not be sexist)
Minimal, Jul 13 2005
  

       Would this be just like Jane Fonda in Barbarella?
hippo, Jul 13 2005
  

       But they'd never be able to put the ship into a parking orbit! <grins, ducks, runs>
AbsintheWithoutLeave, Jul 13 2005
  

       Venus is indeed a ridiculously OTT nasty place on the surface, but around fifty kilometres above the surface, the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere are like the Earth's, though not the composition. This is where i am suggesting they should go. Wanting to penetrate the entire atmosphere and land on the surface seems like a sort of masculine thing somehow, can't think why.
nineteenthly, Jul 13 2005
  

       // a practical reason for wearing clothes on board a spaceship?// None that can't be worked around. If the ship was designed without rough surfaces and sharp corners--basically feminine--clothes shouldn't be needed. Except for pockets, a place to wipe one's hands, absorbing bodily fluid leaks . . .   

       Science-fiction writers have addressed this matter, and some express concern for swinging bits in weightlessness, but choosing for small bits would be better than carrying big bits and restraining clothing. Women might not be as concerned about the bigness of their bits as would men.   

       I'd be concerned about skin and hair being shed into the air--another way in which women might have an advantage. Less body and less body hair, and a greater willingness to take baths. Shaving the hair off the head might be more of an issue than with men, but shaving everywhere else should be much easier.   

       TV ratings might drop if all the crew were petite and shaved, but then again . . .. I was just thinking that these criteria are aiming at Asian women, when I realized I'm starting to describe the classic space alien.   

       Although a ship could be designed to eliminate the need for clothing, there would still be some uses for clothing, and no really good reason not to wear clothes. Yes, a pair of pants weighs a pound or two, but enough cloth to pad a bulkhead weighs a lot more.   

       Space clothing could be a lot more comfortable than clothing designed for use on Earth--no tight waistbands, no heavy shoes--especially if developed for use in weightlessness. Hmm, a chance to slouch around in sweats for a few months, with the bonus of instant weight-loss, I think we're talking about women again.   

       [Later] I started to add grippy shoes to the list of reasons to wear clothes, but I think it might be good to pad the walls with something that can be gripped with bare toes. Women might have the advantage there.
baconbrain, Jul 13 2005
  

       //There might be less conflict between a crew of women than a mixed or all-male one,//
Hmph. Yeah, as long as the voyage lasts less than three and a half weeks.
  

       Apparently, though, women are also better able to withstand high g forces.
moomintroll, Jul 13 2005
  

       No, she has a gig that week.
baconbrain, Jul 13 2005
  

       Arn't astronauts usually highly qualified scientists or ex-military pilots?....We are therefore looking for highly intellegent female scientists, with nice figures.
Minimal, Jul 13 2005
  

       So now we know why the Grays look like that. It seems, then, that the ideal astronaut is a shaven naked Japanese woman test pilot. An ideal subject for anime, in other words.
nineteenthly, Jul 13 2005
  

       The 800 mph flight-level winds might be an issue, but then again maybe not.   

       Don't see any good reason to go to Venus, really.
waugsqueke, Jul 13 2005
  

       Because it's there?
I think the windspeed is an advantage because it enables the planet to be toured passively.
Why go to Venus? Well, to terraform it perhaps? Alternatively, since i'm not that happy about terraforming, i would say, to practice interplanetary exploration, for technological fallout and ultimately, though i have no idea at the moment how this could be done, for mining. Its composition is Earth like but the surface is completely exposed. Also, the atmosphere itself contains resources that could be used, it could be used as a sort of anchoring point for space stations or, as has already been done, as a slingshot to somewhere else. What about huge windmills floating above the clouds, using the energy from the winds to generate electricity in itself or to power chemical plants to process the atmosphere? Or, drop nuclear weapons, other high explosives or maybe just asteroids from orbit, then collect the ejecta as a way of mining it without having to go down to the surface? Also, it's a long shot but the conditions in the upper atmosphere are somewhat hospitable for life, apart from the noxious gases. Surely, if bacteria can survive in concentrated hydrochloric acid (Helicobacter pylori), they could survive in the Venusian atmosphere, so if life ever got started there, it might still be around. That would be worth investigating.
nineteenthly, Jul 13 2005
  

       // We are therefore looking for highly intellegent female scientists, with nice figures. //   

       Sigh. Aren't we all, [Minimal], aren't we all ...
BunsenHoneydew, Jul 23 2007
  

       I dunno, [nineteenthly], I just look for paragraph breaks.
normzone, Jul 23 2007
  

       This is very interesting. I'm not sure about the all women thing but the rest is very well thought out and intriguing. Do you have any idea how much the solar energy would be filtered by the atmosphere remaining above the balloon? Also how acidic is the atmosphere at that level? Would standard balloons survive? If not how specialized would they have to be?
MisterQED, Jul 04 2008
  

       Thanks. There is a point at which the pressure is similar to sea level on Earth and the temperature is somewhere between the freezing and boiling points of water in the same place. That's the height i was proposing to visit. This is very roughly between fifty and sixty kilometres above the surface.   

       <Paragraph break for [normzone]>   

       This height is also where the clouds are, and yes, unfortunately they are sulphuric acid. Therefore, the balloon needs to be made of something which is resistant to sulphuric acid. Alternatively, it could be constantly irrigated with liquid water. I wonder if silicones would work. Alternatively, an exothermic reaction with alkali on the surface could be combined with Stirling engines for energy and propulsion. There's a source of hydrogen right there if there's metal on the outside of the airship, which brings back the whole rockoon issue, given a source of oxygen, and provides extra buoyancy. Another interesting thing: breathable air would have neutral buoyancy at this height, but this does mean the carbon dioxide needs to be ejected to stop sinking, so the air can be breathed and used to support the balloon.   

       The total radiation, assuming no cloud cover at that height, would of course be around twice that at our distance. At the surface, the light has been described as about the same as a gloomy day in Moscow, which i assume is about the same as Glasgow (i.e. same latitude). However, you may be thinking of ultraviolet.
nineteenthly, Jul 04 2008
  

       If the guys go to Mars and women go to Venus, who's going to be interested in Uranus?
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 04 2008
  

       Well, I don't know about yours, but I do try to take appropriate measures with mine.   

       Thanks, [nineteenthly], I appreciate that, but I probably should confess to a weakness for brainy women as well.
normzone, Jul 04 2008
  

       Traditionally, all the "planets" except Mercury are understood to be feminine or masculine, though the only ones i remember are the Moon and the Sun, clearly not planets in the heliocentric system, which are unsurprisingly female and male respectively. Mercury is hermaphrodite. Uranus wasn't then considered a planet but a star (by humans). If i think about it, Saturn seems passive and Jupiter active, so maybe the latter is masculine. Neptune would make quite a nice pair with Uranus.   

       Sorry to take your question so seriously, [MB].
nineteenthly, Jul 04 2008
  

       //easier to reach because it is closer to the sun and there is therefore less need to push against its gravity// except on the return journey!
ServoMan314, Jul 04 2008
  

       I can think of a few people I'd nominate to be the first sent to Uranus.
Bukkakinator, Jul 05 2008
  

       No.   

       Radius of Venus at the equator: six thousand and fifty two kilometres. Height of airship above surface: fifty kilometres.   

       Per mille difference: eight. Surface gravity of Venus: ninety percent of ours. Applying the inverse square law, fifty kilometres up gives it a gravity eighty-eight percent of Earth's. The atmosphere isn't like Uranus', it's just a thin "skin" like Earth's.   

       Yes indeed, [ServoMan], but still easier than getting to Mars i think, though i'm not totally sure.
nineteenthly, Jul 05 2008
  

       [19] so we could get a "floating base" happening without having to put up with the pressure, heat, etc ?... nifty.
FlyingToaster, Jul 05 2008
  

       Absolutely. The sulphuric acid is the biggest problem.   

       Concerning getting back to Earth, it would be necessary to accelerate to around thirty kilometres per second. Some of that could be done by slingshot. Orbital velocity around Venus is around ten kps and there's already a relatively small velocity from the wind. It's not like you even need to decelerate to the rotation rate because of the windy atmosphere.   

       Actually, what about using Mercury as a slingshot?
nineteenthly, Jul 05 2008
  

       Assuming the acid problem is solved, there are still some others. How do you deorbit a lighter than air vehicle or how do you inflight convert a shuttle like deorbit plane into a lighter than air craft? Or are you deorbiting some kind of solar flier perpetually flying heavier than air plane?   

       Then how sturdy does the airship have to be to survive in winds high enough to let you circle the planet in four days?   

       Now let's say you solved all those and you get a bunch of scientists into a megablimp hovering over Venus, now what? I agree that you can do comprehensive study of the ground but couldn't you do that from orbit with the right frequency of radar? What does landing in an ocean of sulfuric acid give you except maybe the components to leave? My first guess is send biologists that could develope microbes to live in the atmosphere, but couldn't that be done easier before you leave or with remotely controlled labs? Is there possibly something in the atmosphere we don't know about?
MisterQED, Jul 05 2008
  

       There is carbonyl sulphide in the atmosphere, and it's unclear how it got there. In the ultraviolet, there is a large absorbent area in each hemisphere, separated by the equator. These have been cited as evidence of life. Given that the upper atmosphere of Venus is the most similar environment to the contemporary surface of our planet, i would say that makes it a moderately likely place for life to exist, and as i've said, there are extremophiles which live in harsher environments than that. That seems to me to be sufficient reason for going there. Whereas automatic probes can do a lot, they wouldn't have the same flexibility as a crew of scientists with a laboratory, who can improvise and make intelligent decisions. The same would apply to a survey done through the clouds of the ground for mineral deposits. Even if they then drop automatic probes, there would be no lag involved in the decision to do that because they would be right there rather than millions of kilometres away.   

       The airship could be delivered inside a capsule, then inflated on arrival in the upper atmosphere.   

       Another thing i don't know is how turbulent the atmosphere is. Laminar flow at eight hundred kph is not a problem if the gradient of velocity is small enough, since it would be just like floating in a calm atmosphere. The momentum of the atmosphere would guarantee that, and all that's needed is to reach the right speed before drag becomes a problem.   

       I will go away and think about this. I don't think it's insurmountable.
nineteenthly, Jul 05 2008
  

       Inflating it in the atmosphere isn't a problem as long as you aren't moving when you do it. Material heavy enough to survive quick inflation would probably not allow much lift left over for the people. I keep thinking the re-entry craft (ATO) from JP Aerospace is close to the mark. Inflate it in space, do a de-orbit burn and fall lightly into the atmosphere.
MisterQED, Jul 05 2008
  

       It might depend on what you mean by moving, because if the "air" around it is moving at a constant velocity, once it's moving that fast itself, it's effectively stationary. If not, a concertina box which can later be shed is another thing i've just made up.   

       Yes, i thought that ATO thing was deeply, deeply nifty as well.
nineteenthly, Jul 05 2008
  

       Since pressure at the surface is equivalent to several kilometers down in a Terrestrial ocean, we might consider looking at submarine design rather than LTA craft; not to get to the ground, but at a lesser altitude than that that is at Earth sea-level pressure/temperature. For reference, 2 atmospheres pressure on Earth is about 30 feet down from sea level (in the sea). From a chart I found on the net that's about 45km altitude (as opposed to 1atm which is at 50km)   

       The unique thing about a buoyant craft (of either kind) is that since you won't be hitting the ground you don't really have to bother with aerodynamics, just encase the base/lab in a huge ball of ablative and when you stop bobbing up and down like a cork, blow the outer covering off... voila.
FlyingToaster, Jul 05 2008
  

       I definitely agree you shouldn't even try for the 1 Atm level at first. Maybe just "land" at a much lower level and then inflate the balloon to go back up.
MisterQED, Jul 05 2008
  

       I like that. I want this to be simple.   

       What i want is an achievable human interplanetary mission. Right now, there's the idea that humans going anywhere beyond the Moon is pretty pointless. I think this is very sad. I also genuinely believe it's bad for society not to have an advancing physical boundary in some sense, because right up until the Moon landings, that had existed since there were humans, and now it's perceived as gone and people are pogo-sticking to the North Pole instead, which is absurd and doesn't hit the spot, as it were. However, Mars is not the easiest place to go. Not that it should be easy, but there are a number of easier interplanetary missions, and this is one of them. The hang up is the obsession with trying to get to the surface.   

       I can remember looking up at the Moon as a child and thinking, "wow, there are actually people up there", and along with many other people i expected Mars to follow forthwith and then, i dunno, the Galileans. It just makes me really sad that that didn't happen.   

       "Even" easier would be visiting close approach asteroids. People really could do that if they wanted. Toutatis was only a week's journey away a couple of years ago. Did anyone even suggest going there though? Did they?   

       I'm sad.
nineteenthly, Jul 05 2008
  

       Does that mean carbonyl sulphide is odourless then? That would explain why women never seem to fart.
nineteenthly, Jan 17 2009
  

       //At the orbit of Venus, the radiation of the sun would be ninety percent higher than the orbit of the Earth, and almost five times that at the orbit of Mars//   

       I think you forgot about the inverse square law, [nineteenthly]. (It applies to electromagnetic radiation, as well as gravity.) Because the Earth is almost twice as far away from the sun as Venus, and Mars almost twice as far away as Earth (and on and on...), the Solar radiation ratios would be closer to ~15:4:1 (Venus:Earth:Mars).   

       An interesting note: because Solar radiation is about 7 times higher in Earth's orbit than down on the land, the Solar radiation in a Mars orbit would be almost twice what it would be down on the Earth's equator. (Generating power by Solar radiation only REALLY becomes inconvenient outside the asteroid belt; and, by then, you are truly on your own...)
Wily Peyote, Jan 18 2009
  

       forgot to annotate this yesterday
theircompetitor, Jul 21 2009
  

       I've made a video interpretation of this idea and linked to it. One of several i'm planning. See link.
nineteenthly, Oct 11 2012
  

       (marked for tagline)   

       " I will go away and think about this. I don't think it's insurmountable "
normzone, Oct 11 2012
  

       I have a friend who is an expert on microgravity medicine, and he reckons that women are physiologically better preadapted to microgravity than men.   

       (Clarification: he thinks that women are physiologically better preadapted to microgravity than men are preadapted to microgravity. I don't think he believes that women are physiologically better preadapted to microgravity than they are to men.)
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 11 2012
  

       //Mars is not the easiest place to go.//   

       Mars isn't that difficult. It would be easier to go to Mars today than it was to go to the moon in the 60s.   

       Humanity is slowly regressing. We can no longer do what we could do 50 years ago.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 11 2012
  

       I'm pretty green on this topic, but isn't Mars primarily a challenge with regards to travel time and distance, retaining one's sanity in a small place and limited cuisine?   

       The surface conditions are what - Mt Everest like? (goes off to look...)   

       Okay, back from wikipedia - Nope, it's a bit tougher than that (link).
normzone, Oct 12 2012
  

       Yes, [MB], i agree that we're going backwards and probably only disagree with you about the precise velocity of the regression, in that i think it's faster. I was reading 'Profiles of the Future' just now, which has become a most depressing read.
nineteenthly, Oct 12 2012
  

       ' a challenge with regards to travel time and distance, retaining one's sanity in a small place and limited cuisine?'   

       Reminds me of working at Milton Keynes.
Phrontistery, Oct 12 2012
  

       I tend to see Venus as more like Telford than Milton Keynes.
nineteenthly, Oct 12 2012
  

       Which planet would be Glenrothes then?
pocmloc, Oct 12 2012
  

       Uranus. Cold, bleak, rocky, desolate and inhospitable, with no atmosphere to speak of.   

       Actually, Uranus is in many ways considerably nicer than Glenrothes, the most important being that it's actually 3 x 10^9 km from Glenrothes. Far, but never quite far enough.
8th of 7, Oct 13 2012
  

       //rocky// As punishment for your geological error, please go to Glenrothes at once and count the rocks before returning. Thanks.
pocmloc, Oct 13 2012
  

       The places we should really be looking at are the moons of Jupiter. Hell, the moons of Mars are more interesting than Mars as manned destinations. At this rate though we will only talk about going to Mars and throw money at some half-assed mission plans until 2030 or so, then we will be ravaged by nuclear war, then put the planet back together, then go back to the moon, then finally have a real mission to Mars in 2430 or so.   

       I always thought that women were worse at working with other women than men are at working with men, or men and women working together. Eh. None of that will likely be a factor because only the "best of the best" would be going on a mission like this and I trust the average astronaut to keep his or her shit together for six months.   

       Also if we care so much about the space and resources required to support a human, I should be the one going because I have a BMI of ~0.
DIYMatt, Oct 13 2012
  

       There's unlikely to be a benefit in that respect but there would still be less time for people to get on each others' nerves. My current thoughts on this are that single parenting would work better on Venus than Earth.
nineteenthly, Oct 13 2012
  

       I've just accidentally deleted a link. Really sorry.
nineteenthly, Mar 01 2013
  

       It's alright, I've just added one...
normzone, Mar 01 2013
  

       But... but... **MARS** NEEDS WOMEN!!
smendler, Sep 30 2016
  

       // Actually, does anyone know if there's a practical reason for wearing clothes on board a spaceship? Assuming they were heterosexual, would there be any good reason for them? //   

       See [link].   

       Also, why does sexual orientation matter? Nudists of all sexual orientations (and genders) seem to get along just fine currently.
notexactly, Oct 03 2016
  

       There are undoubtedly some tasks for which protective equipment is advisable; going outside being the obvious one, but also various repair and maintenance tasks.   

       However, the "clothing" is more likely to need to be knee and elbow pads, gloves, hats and the like, in case of accidental contact with sharp corners. A utility belt is the obvious addition.   

       The sort of garb espoused by roller-derby competitors - minus the rollerskates* - would be the sort of thing.   

       *probably.
8th of 7, Oct 03 2016
  

       Perhaps, but maybe not the astronomical content.
nineteenthly, Oct 04 2016
  

       //because I have a BMI of ~0//
[DIYMatt], do you have zero mass, or are you infinitely tall?
neutrinos_shadow, Oct 04 2016
  

       Or are you hanging about the event horizon of a black hole ?
8th of 7, Oct 04 2016
  

       Zero g vis-à-vis nude: there are good arguments to be made for keeping buttholes covered in most situations, but particularly so in environments with combination of reduced access to proper hygiene and propensity for fecal particles to float such as the interior of a space vehicle. Best keep pants on.
tatterdemalion, Oct 05 2016
  

       We are unsure whether or not to thank you for that pertinent yet repulsive insight.
8th of 7, Oct 05 2016
  

       Some of the risk can be averted with the use of powerful air circulators, such as are needed to maintain atmospheric mixing in zero g, in which case the shit particles will hit the fan. Still, covering your ass is best practice.
tatterdemalion, Oct 05 2016
  

       And now we're sure. TOO ... MUCH ... INFORMATION.
8th of 7, Oct 05 2016
  

       You have a space toilet. You might as well incorporate a bidet, with soap.
notexactly, Oct 08 2016
  

       //Actually, does anyone know if there's a practical reason for wearing clothes on board a spaceship?//

NASA research into this question during the Apollo programme showed that as soon as more than one crewmember was nude all communication between crewmembers ceased, being wholly replaced by constant 'Uranus' jokes.
hippo, Sep 04 2019
  

       There has to be a "little black spacesuit" line in there, somewheres.
FlyingToaster, Sep 04 2019
  

       I can see them, they're still there...
nessiehunter, Sep 05 2019
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle