Three years? A low energy transfer orbit gets you to Mars in less than a year. In the past, theoretical crewed missions were planned with an 8-9 month travel time. With enough propellant, could get that down to just over three months. And that’s with chemical rockets, not some hypothetical nuclear or torch drive.
Humans who are active in space already have to spend a lot of work keeping up muscle and bone mass. Animals in hibernation under normal gravity also lose bone and muscle mass.
Imagine doubling that up, just to save a few sandwiches.
Three years? A low energy transfer orbit gets you to Mars in less than a year. In the past, theoretical crewed missions were planned with an 8-9 month travel time. With enough propellant, could get that down to just over three months. And that’s with chemical rockets, not some hypothetical nuclear or torch drive.
More importantly … what exactly is gained by this incredibly risky biochemical process?
It seems orders of magnitude cheaper, safer, and with more immediately Earth-beneficial spinoffs to focus on making more and better bio-recycling.
Humans who are active in space already have to spend a lot of work keeping up muscle and bone mass. Animals in hibernation under normal gravity also lose bone and muscle mass.
Imagine doubling that up, just to save a few sandwiches.
This. Being in a coma isn’t exactly healthy here on earth either and combining that with no gravity is a death sentence.
they dont lose it as much as humans would, they have adaptations to prevent it.