i refuse to. i refuse to accept anything as concrete as that statement from 'experts' unless they honestly have all their shit together. im honestly tired of all the scientist truly makeing shit up with conclusions highschoolers can come up with during lunch period. and we actually fund these people with actual money?Kenji_03 said:
That is what I meant when I said "take it with a grain of salt".Jegsimmons said:
Would you want to perform a C-section in a weightless environment? Or any surgery that involves cutting a person open for that matter? Surely you don't need to be a surgeon to realise what a complete clusterfuck a zero-g operating theater would be. Furthermore, the speculation about the effects of weightlessness on foetal development is presumably based upon observations of astronauts who have spent long periods of time aboard space stations and the effects the prolonged weightlessness has had on their bodies. Remember when the time comes for that space baby to be born (C-section or otherwise) it will have already spent 9 months in a weightless environment. While we simply don't know how a space baby will develop in utero until we actually try to make one, it is not unreasonable to speculate that their development will be profoundly affected by the absence of gravity.omicron1 said:
There's that and then there's the whole fact that who really wants to embark on a journey that'll take hundreds of years anyway? Shouldn't scientists be a little more concerned with how to get us to the stars a lot faster, instead of how giving birth in zero-g would work? 'Cause I don't know about anyone else, but if I were to launch on a journey to the stars I'd want to live long enough to get there!Jegsimmons said:
Aside from reeeally not wanting to hit anything, maintaining 1G of thrust for several years would be infeasible. You'd need a fuel tank the size of a moon.hittite said:
