[krisoft]

> Is there enough gravity on the moon to prevent the long-term health problems from the space station like bone, muscle and vision loss?

Nobody knows. You might think scientist can science up answers to any question but it is impossible to know this without long term data which is simply not available.

There were some experiments done in parabolic flights [2] but those only last for a very short time.

There is this literature review [2]. They are not optimistic: "It can be anticipated that partial gravity environments as present on the Moon or on Mars are not sufficient to preserve all physiological systems to a 1 g standard if not addressed through adequate countermeasures." Which is space speak for "you will need to go to the gym on the moon". But they are willing to admit how little there is to know for certain: "The methodological quality of the vast majority of the available/included studies is too low to generate a compeling evidence."

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10411353/

2: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10....

[JumpCrisscross]

> it is impossible to know this without long term data which is simply not available

Generating these data is one of the biggest pay-offs of a lunar colony.

[pc86]

I know data is the plural of datum but seeing "these data" instead of "the data" is always so jarring to me. Almost as jarring as seeming anyone use the word "datum" ever.

Is this one of those generational things like "on accident" vs. "by accident" or regional things like "math" vs. "maths"?

[vlovich123]

> The word data can be either singular or plural depending on meaning and context. In general usage, data is treated as singular when used as a mass noun to mean “information” and as plural when used to mean “individual facts.” In scientific and academic writing, data is almost always used as a plural noun. In digital technology, data is usually treated as a singular mass noun to mean “digitally stored information.”

While it’s used interchangeably a lot, it’s also based on whether you have a scientific or CS background. My hunch is that the scientific plural usage will eventually largely die out except in very specific situations after a few generations given that software is eating the world.

[1] https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/data-is-or-data-are/

[JumpCrisscross]

Huh, didn’t know about that line. I do tend to refer to scientific data plurally, where each datum is meaningless, and technical data singularly.

[dctoedt]

> Is this one of those generational things like "on accident" vs. "by accident"

"On accident": Abomination! Kill it with fire, now! </OldFartRant>

[somenameforme]

Another, perhaps even more interesting question, is also how the first generation who are born in low g will evolve and adapt. And this, so far as I know, is a completely unexplored question. Mammal experiments might be interesting, but at some point you simply have to do it with humans, not only because of our fairly long gestation period, but also because of how absurdly undeveloped we are even once when born. There's every reason to think a human baby may develop differently than other mammals which do far more development within the womb.

[itishappy]

> And this, so far as I know, is a completely unexplored question.

To date, no mammals have given birth in space. We sent pregnant mice and had them return to Earth to give birth, and we've sent mouse zygotes and grown them in space, but no birth!

[floxy]

Mice in space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7lgj3aZ8dU

[somenameforme]

That video is awesome. This [1] seems to be a pertinent paper. One thing I don't understand is why we intentionally limit the experiments. Having male + female and then running the experiment through generations seems like it would be vastly more informative. For instance that 'race tracking' behavior around the cage, only seemed to emerge in young mice. What sort of new behaviors, adaptions, etc will emerge in the first generation born entirely in low g?

Or perhaps even the 2nd generation could be even more telling. Why not simply run the experiment until they all die off, or go full Malthus? Another interesting idea would be to create a faux terrarium type enclosure instead of a plain cage. Would the mice exhibit a bias towards the "ground"? And also it's kind of odd that none of the studies thought to include a lens wiper for their cameras after the first one demonstrated the problem. In 0g, various 'matter' ends up getting stuck on the camera lens, increasingly trending towards 0 visibility.

[1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40789-y