"I find your argument against supplemental oxygen unconvincing."
Newt, it isn't my argument, or my numbers. I'm just passing on what the best of the best have claimed to document.
I know how much oxygen you can fit in a scuba
tank--and, how heavy that tank is, how expensive it is to maintain, and that you'll also have to "oxygen clean" the tank and regulator
before you can use it for high concentrations of O2 without the risk of fire and explosion.
Again, it isn't something fit for small craft. If you are wearing that rig, you aren't going to be hopping about the deck
. At best, you'll be laid up in sick bay [sic] and that makes you useless compared to someone who is drugged and able to move about and work the boat.
But by all means, bring and use oxygen. Just because breathing a 100% oxygen atmosphere didn't work for NASA, doesn't mean it might not work for you. I'd have to guess the difference is between BREATHING it, and OPENING THE CAPILLARIES to get it spread around in the body, among other things. Don't buy that from me--ask NASA. I'm rashly and blindly trusting the results of their o-rings. Ergh, work.
"You also mentioned a working "rate" of only 33%. How is your success in measuring seasickness defined? " As I said, I'm rashly trusting NASA for their results. If that turns out to be 30% or 40%, I'm still remembering it as 1/3 as in "worked for one out of three crew" rather than "38 out of 100 crew on the mothership".
Alls I know is that when I'm on 'scop, I may become a blind psychotic axe murderer who succumbs to heart palpitations while asking "What's for lunch?" but everyone I know wholeheartedly agrees that's way better than puking up your stomache lining for 48 hours straight.
I think most of the NASA work was done in the 60's or earlier (70's at the very latest) and there's been nothing really new discovered, published, documented, or said since, except the electronic ReliefBand. Which also works, sometimes, for some.