"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> Spike Jones wrote:
> > Question please anyone: do you suppose a 35 kg woman would
> > need half the food, water and oxygen of a 70 kg woman? Does it
> > scale linearly? spike
>
> My cousin who was in antarctica last year for a couple months says that
> working (digging holes in frozen rocky ice) and just living in those
> conditions there required between 6000-10,000 calories a day. I would
> imagine that working inside a space suit is probably a similar work
> level.
>
> Now, the calories you burn does have linearity, but only if you have the
> same percent of lean body mass (muscle) in both cases. Bones and fatty
> tissue don't burn much energy at all. If both the 35 and 70 kg women
> have only 15 kg of muscle, then they will have pretty near the same
> caloric budget.
Moreover, how much work can some indiam women do if they are emaciated? Now,
your old idea of sending legless people into space has merit, since legs are
useless in space and just use up water and food and habitat volume, but sending
them to Mars might not be a good idea. I'd prefer sending up some midget body
builders rather than some starving Indian women. Little people equals little
space ships equals smaller budget...its no wonder little green men are only
three feet tall. I bet they have a sign at the Zeta Reticuli Space Port saying
"No Passage to Anyone Taller Than This Line." Using little people on
interstellar voyages cuts your propulsion energy demands by half too.... I'll
bet the rest of the galactic civilization is ignoring us because we are too
tall....
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:52 MDT