A Concept to Study How Space Affects Multiple Generations

[@leoaksil4085]

Nasa really need to achieve this project. It's important.

[@bergonius]

Awesome idea, i hope they give it a go.

[@3gunslingers]

Incredible interesting. I'm really curious about the results.

[@aidenokrent]

Wow NASA! Something new every day! I hope this gets approved.

[@jamiegodman715]

I think we need to keep testing artificial gravity. I'm glad to see mice hab is going to spin up to produce AG.

[@bravokorns]

Go nasa

[@TheDragonFlyerAviation]

This Was Very Interesting !!!

[@captainerik5608]

This is intresting

[@dreadav7304]

Plant trees and grass it don't take a rocket scientist to see we need oxygen out there.

[@anthonyorlando9787]

Will mice hab also reproduce mars like radiation?

[@LarsAgerbk]

next up: human space-cage!

[@primemagi]

small step in right direction. it would be better to run the program simultaneously on moon and Mars to give full rang of gravity. when mankind was brought to earth, they were gradually introduced until sufficient hybrid to make the species survivable. for mankind it is difficult, as there is no space craft suitable for colonization.or habitable planet suitable locally. the technology is limited because wrong models and lack of understanding of gravity and structure of matter. MG1

[@k.mirenburg6766]

Interesting but not necessary. Spin people aboard ISS! Spinning mice will only provide statistical info on this subject. Nice study.

[@IgnemFeram01]

The ISS isn't made for "spinning" and would be much more expensive to add a module that can do that than it would be to make a separate habitat for mice. You'd be surprised how similar mice are to humans. We could even manipulate their genome (like we've done here) to 'close the gap' so to speak.

[@TheDragonFlyerAviation]

First Comment yay

[@BrennanCallan]

The woman continuously mispronounced a number of words. I do not understand why an American agency is using a foreigner to do the voice-over work on this video. The sound track should be reproduced with someone who speaks English as their first language.

[@Blackstar-cf7gm]

Very tired of CGI waste of money graphics. Do the scientists need expensive visual aids??? How much did all this animation cost the American public???? We do NOT have money to waste on artistic endeavors for NA$A, they need their HUGE budget cut.

[@MrSparker95]

I'm sure it costs nothing compared to real research and projects.

[@jedimastersterling1]

The mission rocket alone will cost something in the $100m range, the payload will cost several times that, and then the development program which will cost even more than that. I think they can splurge and spend $1k - $3k on animating a cheap low res concept video. It probably pulls double duty as demonstration in a budget meeting and public outreach anyway. Of course you could always contact your congresional representative and explain why less than .001% of NASA's budget for this program is an irresponsible waste of money and removing it would constitute a "HUGE budget cut." I'm sure he'd find it as ridiculous as I do.

[@Blackstar-cf7gm]

You really think they only spend $1 - $3K on animation? Really?? Try again. Can you provide your source for your financial breakdown? I would LOVE to see it. CGI is not cheap. The equipment used to make CGI is not cheap. And visuals are NOT necessary. At all. Unless of course you are trying to manipulate peoples perspective.

[@jedimastersterling1]

Do you have any numbers you'd like to put forward? It's animation with rectangles and circles for everything except the mouse, the man and the robot hand. For the mouse and man you can use a stock figure, and no skeletal animation. The robot hand was animating one movement using skeletal animation and no soft figure morphing, so that's not going to break the bank. The 3D models would have to be made while designing the mission proposal anyway so the work there is transporting them from CAD to animation software not actually making them anew. And the rest of the animating work is college junior project level stuff. If a competent animator can't knock that out in a couple days, then you need a new animator. However even if I'm off by a factor of 10 the point still holds. $500m to $1b vs $10k to $30k still isn't even a drop in the bucket. I would be more worried if they didn't spend that money trying to communicate what their doing to the population that's funding them.

[@Blackstar-cf7gm]

Again...why do we need fake visuals??? Why all the animation? Why spend ANY money on it? Lets stop simplifying the science and expect Star Wars/Trek style cgi, and show only the REAL images. Thats it. No more art projects please. Grow up.

[@johnmclaughlin3320]

more nonsense