An American astronaut will run this year's Boston Marathon on board the International Space Station.
Sunita Williams, 41, a US Navy commander, will be tied to a treadmill to combat the effect of weightlessness.
She qualified for a place by finishing last year's Houston Marathon in three hours 29 minutes and 57 seconds.
But she blasted off on board the Discovery space shuttle in December, prompting her decision to try to run the race in space on 16 April.
This is nice, I guess, to allow her to compete. I wouldn't begrudge her that chance since she's clearly qualified and has gone through a lot to make it happen. But, what's the point, exactly? Doesn't it turn into a completely different exercise when you're running in zero gravity? Even if you're strapped to a treadmill....no wind resistance, climate control, regulated oxygen level, maybe a cath, you could sort of float above the treadmill as the miles tick by. And doesn't the treadmill itself add a bit of fallacy to the whole thing by enabling you to be hyper aware and in control of things like your pace, incline (and note, no decline possible), stride, time, etc.? Plus, there will be no weight bearing which is pretty much what sets running apart from things like swimming and cycling (also, it seems to frustrate her complaint that she won't have a bath waiting at the end).
So what does the Boston Athletic Association have to say about the attempt? Well, Jack Fleming of the BAA is setting his own record for the most offensively misguided digs that could possibly be packed into one short sentence.
For Suni to choose to run the 26.2 miles (42.2km) in space on Patriots Day is really a tribute to the thousands of marathoners who are running here on Earth."
Ok, first, wtf does patriots day have to do with it? And second, I'm pretty sure this is not about the runners on earth. It's about running in space. She's doing it for herself, for the Navy, to set a record, but not for the people on Earth. There's not much remarkable or tribute-worthy about running on Earth anymore, precisely because of what she's doing.
This whole thing is a little strange - this performance, though obviously a test of physical and mental strength and stamina, really doesn't seem to quite count as running. Not only because of the things I alluded to above, it also raises a whole litany of potential injuries and difficulties that differ from those suffered by marathon runners:
Nasa has built a "vibration isolation system" to keep the space station steady as Ms Williams runs, but this places extra strain on the runner's hips and shoulders.
"That harness gets hard on her back and her shoulders or her hips," said the astronaut's sister, Dina Pandya.
"Her foot was going numb because the strap was on her hip so much."
I think my problem with this is that it's arbitrary and not really about 'running' the 'Boston' marathon. It seems suspiciously like a 'rally 'round the flag' publicity stunt. Apparently great lengths are gone to in order to accommodate qualifiers who can't actually be in Boston for the marathon. And the only example given is that US soldiers abroad are given the chance to compete by being sent care packages of finishing line, watter bottles, and trophies. Which is nice. But when did marathons become marketing billboards for Patriots Day and US troops and war and astronauts?
I have a plan that would fix everything without expanding the fiction.... that is without expanding it beyond what is clearly already acceptable. Instead of saying she's running the Boston marathon when she's actually 210 miles away from Boston, she should just say she's 'continuously' in outer space by fudging the detail that she spent a day in Boston...
But lest I miss a chance to exploit such a fine-tuned loophole, I'm going to complete the Boston Marathon by sitting on my ass for five hours strait finishing up my workshop papers. On Patriot's day of course. And to simulate running I will consume nothing but Gatorade and that Cliff goo until hour 4 when the sustinance stations close up.
No comments:
Post a Comment