Should We Launch a Kid to Space?

[Pawelk198604]

2 hours ago, monstah said:

WAT.

So, the demonstration of human-rated capabilities, the first results of human exposure to zero G, and the first results on the difference between male and female physiology in space are publicity stunts?

Sure, there's some scientific value in sending a child just like there was sending Valentina. But, try sticking those kids in a centrifugue first?

Agree i chosen rather poor wording, But Gagarin while he was first ever human being doesn't have active control over Vostok 1 spacecraft everything was fully automated thanks to this man ingenuity  

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Im gonna assume its not

I did leave a visible clue in the post guys!

I was more concerned about it seeming disrespectful (which of course was not my intention.)

[TheSaint]

5 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

Should We Launch a Kid to Space?

Yes. After the escapades at my house this morning, I have a couple in mind....

Edited August 18, 2017 by TheSaint
The worst forum software. Ever.

[Elthy]

1 minute ago, p1t1o said:

I did leave a visible clue in the post guys!

I was more concerned about it seeming disrespectful (which of course was not my intention.)

I somehow didnt see that on my phone...

[Pawelk198604]

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

Betteridge's law of headlines says no.

This is pretty much the same reason NASA tried to put a teacher in space.  It wasn't a good idea then, it is worse now.  If you are mass limited, look for a small enough woman (NASA required all astronauts [at least until the Shuttle] to be under 6 feet tall (roughly 180cm), although some of them were pretty stocky).

Maybe it's pure marketing but it's had value in itself, see someday we might colonize outer space first our own solar system than other System like Proxima Centauri and so on 

Beside kids do dangerous stuff already, and it's good if it's goes to right direction, kids, teens and young adult goes for extreme sport, like this boy 

   And it's don't diminish with age  

Because that make us human our adventurous spirit, berceuse we want discover new thing to boldly goo....  

 

2 hours ago, Elthy said:

Im gonna assume its not, at least someone reading this wont know:

The "Teacher in Space" program was supposed to inspire a generation of studends, sadly it went wrong in the worst possible way. Christa McAuliffe was onboard when Challenger exploded, watched by lots of pupils in the USA.

 

Regarding a child in space: Nope, experiments on kids arent exactly right. Its like giving a 5 year old alcohol to see what happens, even if the child agrees its still wrong.

Not compare space exploration to giving vodka to kids, soon we would need to leave Earth anyway  

Edited August 18, 2017 by Pawelk198604

[YNM]

We are all kids anyway, to some parents.

If you mean by "kids" as "minors" or preteenage - teenage, then I guess it comes down to whether they'd survive the usual test of launch... and reentry. Now those I'm not sure.

[monstah]

Well, I for one think sending John Glenn up again was kind of crazy, so I wouldn't ever use it to justify sending a kid.

But, even then, he had training, he had done this before, and he was a military pilot, so being put in danger was not something unexpected, or ethically dubious. Plus, since he had flown before, there was already some good physiological baseline to study the effects of space on his older body. So even from a scientific gain standpoint, the pros of sending elderly Glenn up outweigh the cons in a way sending a child most likely never could.

[p1t1o]

@Pawelk198604

Did...did you just compare the risks of going to space to skateboarding?

 

Sentimental claptrap.

You know who cannot afford to be sentimental, and have to be by the exact-letter-of-the-book-at-all-times or many people die horribly?

Astronauts.

[Pawelk198604]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

We are all kids anyway, to some parents.

If you mean by "kids" as "minors" or preteenage - teenage, then I guess it comes down to whether they'd survive the usual test of launch... and reentry. Now those I'm not sure.

they would survive, if they are prepared enough 3 Gs on launch and reentry is not something that kid in good health could not handle if 77 years old guy can handle it so on will be with 12-16 years old teen  

3 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

@Pawelk198604

Did...did you just compare the risks of going to space to skateboarding?

 

Sentimental claptrap.

You know who cannot afford to be sentimental, and have to be by the exact-letter-of-the-book-at-all-times or many people die horribly?

Astronauts.

Kids could do more dangerous and stupid thing than that  

[monstah]

2 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

they would survive, if they are prepared enough 3 Gs on launch and reentry is not something that kid in good health could not handle if 77 years old guy can handle it so on will be with 12-16 years old teen  

I might agree with you on this, but to me the risks still outweigh any potential gain.

[p1t1o]

2 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

Kids could do more dangerous and stupid thing than that  

What a great reason to send a child to space. I guess in the Sudan they have to fight in wars and stuff too so I dunno what Im worried about really.

[Pawelk198604]

5 minutes ago, monstah said:

Well, I for one think sending John Glenn up again was kind of crazy, so I wouldn't ever use it to justify sending a kid.

But, even then, he had training, he had done this before, and he was a military pilot, so being put in danger was not something unexpected, or ethically dubious. Plus, since he had flown before, there was already some good physiological baseline to study the effects of space on his older body. So even from a scientific gain standpoint, the pros of sending elderly Glenn up outweigh the cons in a way sending a child most likely never could.

Why not someday we will live in space for generation, and kid's could certainly handle it's better than 77 years old man with all due respect for that man, 

Plus form i know space travel can be deeply psychological changing experience, maybe it would inspire such kid to do something great? That school is not complete wast of time, despite all that teachers that constantly prove them that it is        

[55delta]

Well, time for me to make things uncomfortable by pointing out that children are the subject of scientific studies all the time. It's just that there's a big list of ethical obligations that need to met first, likely including the participation of a parent or guardian. I suppose it comes down to how comfortable we are attaching wireless electrodes to monitor a child's heart-rate, pulse, and breathing.

I suppose the big question is, can a child survive the g-load? I'm sure there's some data on the affects of g-forces on children. I more think the question is, how do the more intense fair-ground and amusement park rides compare to the g-load of Blue Origin's New Shepard?

I say New Shepard specifically because it would be the shortest and most controlled rocket I can think of. Less to go wrong and less to screw up then, say, a week in the ISS.

[YNM]

42 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

they would survive, if they are prepared enough 3 Gs on launch and reentry is not something that kid in good health could not handle if 77 years old guy can handle it so on will be with 12-16 years old teen

Not every adults can pull that mate. More so for 8 minutes at least on launch and another 8 minutes or so at even higher peak gees on reentry.

If one wants to send any, most likely it'll be teenage to late teenage.

 

Though I do get why OP (you) asks such question. If humans want to become interplanetary society it'd mean that everyone should be able to do the travel. So until we can launch anyone to space with ease, we aren't there yet.

[adsii1970]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

While I agree it would be wrong, I know a few kids I'd like to send on a one-way trip to space...

Can see it now, @StrandedonEarth - I can already hear some alien scream out...

"get out of my crater, you bunch of human delinquents!"

[monstah]

35 minutes ago, YNM said:

Though I do get why OP (you) asks such question. If humans want to become interplanetary society it'd mean that everyone should be able to do the travel. So until we can launch anyone to space with ease, we aren't there yet.

Oh, and I agree that's an important question!

My problem is with the linked article. That is pure sensationalist garbage, IMO. Sure, we send kids on airplanes now. It's safe and routine, now. That's not the point of the author there; space won't be this level of safe and routine for decades, I think.

[TheEpicSquared]

Where do I sign up?  

[kerbiloid]

When spaceships with fusion drives will be built, their systems will be overcomplicated and require ~100% automation.

So, they won't have a crew, only passengers. And a "pilot" will just ask the ship "let's fly to Mars".

I.e. any child can pilot a future spaceship.

So, why not? But not now.

[CastleKSide]

Well, here is a different way to look at this question. Dedicated space tourism is only about 5 years out with Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and others. Maybe as little as 2 years. Tickets are on sale now. What if a parent approaches one of these companies and wants to go up with a minor child?  

[Pawelk198604]

2 hours ago, 55delta said:

Well, time for me to make things uncomfortable by pointing out that children are the subject of scientific studies all the time. It's just that there's a big list of ethical obligations that need to met first, likely including the participation of a parent or guardian. I suppose it comes down to how comfortable we are attaching wireless electrodes to monitor a child's heart-rate, pulse, and breathing.

I suppose the big question is, can a child survive the g-load? I'm sure there's some data on the affects of g-forces on children. I more think the question is, how do the more intense fair-ground and amusement park rides compare to the g-load of Blue Origin's New Shepard?

I say New Shepard specifically because it would be the shortest and most controlled rocket I can think of. Less to go wrong and less to screw up then, say, a week in the ISS.

As for collecting medical data even adults have temper tantrums  

 

As for G-load is on normal rollercoaster is more higher than astronauts can experience on Space Shuttle or Soyuz  

http://rollercoaster.wikia.com/wiki/Highest_G-Force_on_a_Roller_Coaster

yet kids are allowed there    

2 hours ago, YNM said:

Not every adults can pull that mate. More so for 8 minutes at least on launch and another 8 minutes or so at even higher peak gees on reentry.

If one wants to send any, most likely it'll be teenage to late teenage.

 

Though I do get why OP (you) asks such question. If humans want to become interplanetary society it'd mean that everyone should be able to do the travel. So until we can launch anyone to space with ease, we aren't there yet.

Agree on that it would probably 14-19 years old, until we invite rocket that can pull manageable G load on launch, but we had still left with re-entry g-load   

1 hour ago, monstah said:

Oh, and I agree that's an important question!

My problem is with the linked article. That is pure sensationalist garbage, IMO. Sure, we send kids on airplanes now. It's safe and routine, now. That's not the point of the author there; space won't be this level of safe and routine for decades, I think.

sensationalist garbage?

Why you think so?

Edited August 18, 2017 by Pawelk198604

[Pawelk198604]

7 hours ago, monstah said:

WAT.

So, the demonstration of human-rated capabilities, the first results of human exposure to zero G, and the first results on the difference between male and female physiology in space are publicity stunts?

Sure, there's some scientific value in sending a child just like there was sending Valentina. But, try sticking those kids in a centrifugue first?

BTW what is wrong with putting kid in centrifuge?

this kid could made to 8,5 Gees 

i wish i had such experience at that age   

[YNM]

13 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

BTW what is wrong with putting kid in centrifuge?

this kid could made to 8,5 Gees

Those are split seconds.

Here's what they do.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

Children are smaller. We can pack two for the price of one.

[Pawelk198604]

We Humans are adventurous creatures, especially children, like the kerbals  
But education systems than work are designated to make our loss our adventurous spirit     

[_Augustus_]

This is such a bad, dangerous, and downright dumb idea that I don't really have any comments. If anything went wrong it would be the worst PR disaster in spaceflight history.