I was reading about the latest findings on mice which went to space aboard Shuttle Atlantis in 2011. They showed liver damage after only 2 weeks in orbit:http://www.todayonline.com/world/mice-space-showed-liver-damage-after-two-weekshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/20/liver-damage-in-space-mice-raises-doubts-for-human-exploration/So what might be the reasons for this damage, and what are the implications of this for human spaceflight? I always thought the main risks in orbit to human health were the muscular atrophy, osteoporosis, and of course some radiation exposure. I've always assumed that radiation isn't too bad below the Van Allen belts, and that it was manageable, barring some solar/cosmic event.I'd never realized that astronauts came back suffering from diabetes or liver dysfunction. Is radiation the culprit here? Or is it possible that some other influence is behind it? A researcher mentions the possibility of physical stress, particularly during launch and reentry. Is it possible that animals may suffer more damage just from being more terrified in these situations?What happens if, as more people start going out to space, we find all sorts of damage is occurring that we weren't aware of before? How will it change our plans for space?
So you feel that grantsmanship may be at work here, along with sensationalism. Gee, I hope so, because it would really suck to be trapped on our one planet.
Bear in mind that the diabetes-like symptoms described for returning astronauts disappeared after a while back on Earth, and that microgravity (the culprit) can theoretically be mitigated/solved. This is why we need greater capability for more human research in space (not to mention further into space).
I was reading about the latest findings on mice which went to space aboard Shuttle Atlantis in 2011. They showed liver damage after only 2 weeks in orbit:http://www.todayonline.com/world/mice-space-showed-liver-damage-after-two-weekshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/20/liver-damage-in-space-mice-raises-doubts-for-human-exploration/So what might be the reasons for this damage, and what are the implications of this for human spaceflight? {snip}
Two weeks is sufficiently short that we test the effects. Start with long periods without gravity.Build a centrifuge that will rotate the Rodent Habitat at 1 G. Put some mice in the rotating habitat at the ISS and in a second static habitat. Have a third one as a control on the Earth. After 3 weeks compare the effects.https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/RodentHabitatFS_1-15-14_2.pdf
{snip}And if gravity proves to be necessary, then the space tourist industry will have to come up with ways to provide artificial gravity.But weightlessness is just one example of the enhanced potential risks of space - there's radiation, there's living in an artificial environment, there's micrometeorites, etc, etc. {snip}
A new paper was published on Lithium Hydride deep space radiation mitigation:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160003084&hterms=deep+space+habitat&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchallany%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ns%3DPublication-Date%7C1%26N%3D0%26Ntt%3Ddeep%2Bspace%2Bhabitatbasically, Lithium Hydride does a substantially better job then HDPE and has a density half that of Aluminum. HDPE has a density of 0.97g/cm^3 while Lithium Hydride has a density between 0.54 and 0.57 g/cm^3. this is a very good finding.
Quote from: BrightLight on 07/26/2016 08:41 pmA new paper was published on Lithium Hydride deep space radiation mitigation:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160003084&hterms=deep+space+habitat&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchallany%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ns%3DPublication-Date%7C1%26N%3D0%26Ntt%3Ddeep%2Bspace%2Bhabitatbasically, Lithium Hydride does a substantially better job then HDPE and has a density half that of Aluminum. HDPE has a density of 0.97g/cm^3 while Lithium Hydride has a density between 0.54 and 0.57 g/cm^3. this is a very good finding.The density in this application isn't a good thing. Denser is better, IF the specific radiation shielding remains the same.
And then pray that bad effects don't pan out - because if it does turn out that going to space is bad for your health, and this becomes popular public perception, then this could seriously undermine space tourism.And if gravity proves to be necessary, then the space tourist industry will have to come up with ways to provide artificial gravity.But weightlessness is just one example of the enhanced potential risks of space - there's radiation, there's living in an artificial environment, there's micrometeorites, etc, etc. Will we ever see insurance companies insuring space tourists, just as they do to all sorts of regular vacationers? Will that ever happen, even in the far future?If space is going to be opened up to the masses, then it's going to have to be made safer for the masses too. Otherwise, you could argue that Jules Verne had great ideas to achieve access to space - for those bold enough to travel like that.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/27/2016 02:18 amQuote from: BrightLight on 07/26/2016 08:41 pmA new paper was published on Lithium Hydride deep space radiation mitigation:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160003084&hterms=deep+space+habitat&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchallany%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ns%3DPublication-Date%7C1%26N%3D0%26Ntt%3Ddeep%2Bspace%2Bhabitatbasically, Lithium Hydride does a substantially better job then HDPE and has a density half that of Aluminum. HDPE has a density of 0.97g/cm^3 while Lithium Hydride has a density between 0.54 and 0.57 g/cm^3. this is a very good finding.The density in this application isn't a good thing. Denser is better, IF the specific radiation shielding remains the same.I guess I misunderstood, for the same mass of shielding, I thought you get better protection from GCR's
Sample size of seven! That's microscopic!
Interesting study that may show something, but there is still that sample size problem. Of the eight deceased beyond-LEO Apollo astronauts only three died of cardio issues (according to publicly available information). Two died of cancer and one of pancreatitis. One died in a motorcycle accident. Edgar Mitchell recently passed away at age 85 after a "short illness". The three cardio cases were Jim Irwin (61), Ron Evans (56), and Neil Armstrong (82). - Ed Kyle
I'm not sure if this study has been already posted:"Cosmic radiation exposure and persistent cognitive dysfunction" (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep34774).Rodents were irradiated with simulated cosmic radiation for 12 and 24 weeks. Radiation caused brain damage and increased neuroinflammation that persisted 6 months after exposure. Effects included memory loss and anxiety.Excerpt:"The Mars mission will result in an inevitable exposure to cosmic radiation that has been shown to cause cognitive impairments in rodent models, and possibly in astronauts engaged in deep space travel. Of particular concern is the potential for cosmic radiation exposure to compromise critical decision making during normal operations or under emergency conditions in deep space."IMHO that means that any BEO missions lasting longer than a week or so must have some form of radiation shielding. Just turning the ship's engine bay towards the Sun in the event of solar flare (as Musk said at the IAC event) is not going to cut it.
The human body is approximately 60 percent fluids. During spaceflight, these fluids shift to the upper body and move across blood vessel and cell membranes differently than they normally do on Earth...... a pattern NASA calls visual impairment and intracranial pressure syndrome, or VIIP. It involves changes in vision and the structure of the eyes and indirect signs of increased pressure in the brain.....
Does this once again point to the need for artificial gravity, or rather to just make spaceflight a quicker/briefer experience?
is it possible that toughing it out in space will lead humans to develop genetic adaptations - aka. Homo Spaciens?
Space changes the shape of your brain too, apparently:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4181448/Prolonged-spaceflight-changes-shape-brain.htmlAdditionally, it seems to even subtly affect DNA in ways that can matter a lot:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/31/going-into-space-affects-dna-astronaut-twins/97295132/Does this once again point to the need for artificial gravity, or rather to just make spaceflight a quicker/briefer experience?Or is it possible that toughing it out in space will lead humans to develop genetic adaptations - aka. Homo Spaciens?
- Scott's telomeres on the ends of his chromosomes in his white blood cells lengthened while in space.
Lengthening the telomeres is actually beneficial... one aging effect is being offset. All changes are not necessarily harmful.