SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Apollo astronauts who have ventured out of the protective magnetosphere of mother Earth appear to be dying of cardiovascular disease at a far higher rate than their counterparts—both those that have stayed grounded and those that only flew in the shielding embrace of low-Earth orbit. Though the data is slim—based on only 77 astronauts total—researchers speculate that potent ionizing radiation in deep space may be to blame. That hypothesis was backed up in follow-up mouse studies that provided evidence that similar radiation exposure led to long-lasting damage to the rodents’ blood vessels. All of the data was published Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports.
[...] In the new study, [Michael] Delp [at Florida State University] and coauthors compared health data on 42 astronauts that had traveled into space—seven of which got past the magnetosphere and to the Moon—to the medical records of 35 astronauts that were grounded for their careers. The death rate from cardiovascular disease among the Apollo lunar astronauts was a whopping 43 percent, which is around four to five times the rate seen in the non-fliers and low-fliers (nine and 11 percent, respectively).
To figure out if deep-space ionizing radiation or, perhaps, weightlessness might explain the apparent jump in cardiovascular disease deaths, the researchers turned to a mouse model. Mice were either exposed to a single dose of radiation, had their hind limbs elevated to prevent weight-bearing for two weeks, or received both treatments. The researchers then let the faux-astronaut mice recover for six to seven months, which in human terms would be about 20 years.
[Continues...]
The researchers found that the mice exposed to radiation, or both radiation and simulated weightlessness, had sustained damage to their blood vessels. Namely, the mice had impaired vasodilation, or problems expanding their blood vessels to adjust for blood pressure. This can be a precursor to heart attacks and stroke. The mice that just experience simulated weightlessness, on the other hand, seemed normal.
While the rodent data complement the findings in real astronauts, the authors were clear about the limitations of the study. “Caution must be used in drawing definitive conclusions regarding specific health risks,” they concluded. The astronaut numbers are very small for an epidemiological study, there may be other factors in the space environment that could explain the possible health effects, and the type of radiation given to the mice wasn’t exactly the same as the type astronauts experience.
Delp and his colleagues are working with NASA on follow-up studies of astronauts’ health.
-- submitted from IRC
That seems to be a very small sample from which to draw any kind of conclusion, but it does suggest that outer space may be more hazardous that we thought. How will/should this affect future manned (personed?) space flight plans? With SpaceX planning to create a Mars Colonization Transport ship, maybe they would launch a hundred or so mice on a trip around the moon for their own edification?
Other coverage:
University Herald
The Guardian .
(Score: 2) by bziman on Monday August 01 2016, @02:56PM
After so many years, and lots of research, there are lots of shielding methods available to help with future missions. I just can't believe the amount of time and money humans have spent killing each other during the last forty years, while not bothering to send a single soul out of low earth orbit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @03:10PM
You are thinking too much into this. The Apollo astronauts were treated as national heros and thus less likely to die in accidents. So they lived longer and were thus more likely to succumb to heart disease, that is all that is going on here. This paper is unbelievable spin on a trivial observation. From tables 1/2:
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 01 2016, @03:12PM
Active electromagnetic shielding around spacecraft (preferably with fusion power), or more shit and literal shit in the walls.
Here are some more ideas:
http://www.space.com/29512-mars-mission-radiation-nasa-challenge.html [space.com]
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars [nasa.gov]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @04:24PM
An astronaut needs to be surrounded by a 4-to-6 foot thick solid wall of excrement, food, and/or water on all sides to get sufficient protection. That is going to be a weighty ship, and thus expensive.
And, leaks are likely with that much stuff. Humans are sent instead of bots mostly for national pride, and a life-threatening doo-doo leak will NOT help national pride.
(Yes, I do believe bots are more cost effective than humans for exploring. I know that's a long and contentious debate, but in my opinion the bots win it.)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 01 2016, @04:40PM
The true test for human exploration will be for humans to create sustainable off-Earth bases that require no resupply like the ISS does. That means, if you can cover the initial costs (billions of dollars? hundreds of millions?) for creating the base, then humans can live there indefinitely and without being bothered, barring disaster.
Our space budgets should allow for both human and robot exploration, but I do believe we should prioritize bot exploration. There's no problem with postponing things like the planned ~2035 manned Mars mission or a humans jumping around on an asteroid mission. They can be done later, and likely cheaper after being postponed a decade or two. Robots should also set up bases/colonies in advance before any human steps there.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday August 01 2016, @03:28PM
Why? What's currently beyond low Earth orbit that any human would have reason to want to visit fr other than personal ego gratification? High orbit is pretty much like low orbit, except for the lack of radiation shielding magnetosphere. Why would we intentionally send people there?
Beyond that, well, we've been to the moon, and conclusively found that it's utterly hostile and unappealing, to the point that revisiting it before we're ready to build serious industrial infrastructure is kinda pointless. Mars is considerably more inviting, but only if we assume we're planning to build a similarly sophisticated industrial base. And the Earth L4 and L5 asteroid fields have only recently been confirmed to exist to sufficient extent to be worth visiting... after we're prepared to build extensive zero-g infrastructure. And our once-shining sister planet Venus has been discovered to be a superheated inferno not worth sending people to until we're prepared to build floating outposts over some of the most violent permanent thunderstorms in the solar system.
I'm a huge fan of space exploration, but basically where human exploration is concerned we're currently in the doldrums between having proved we could (in principle) do it if we wanted to, and having the technology to be able to do it without a ridiculous expense. And there's no obvious short-term motive to actually invest serious resources in either doing so, or developing the technology to make it cheaper.
It's taken Musk and other "bubble billionaires" who that are basically geeks who made their fortunes more through incredible good luck than the usual long slow dedication to accumulating wealth and power to start pumping serious resources into developing the enabling technologies to take humanity beyond orbit in a reasonable fashion, apparently for love of the dream. And I have high hopes that with their advances in rocket technology we may be on the cusp of making asteroid mining for precious metal profitable for Earth-based interests, which should make the other 99% of the "slag heap" cheap enough to begin building serious space-based infrastructure and get the ball rolling.
It's a great dream, but as with most great dreams, there's been precious little promise of real-world benefit to anyone with the resources to make it happen.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 01 2016, @04:01PM
conclusively found that it's utterly hostile and unappealing
This is dating website talk. Nothing wrong with it on an individual level, but its right up there with "gentlemen prefer blondes" its not terribly useful as a national policy.
The moon is a WAY better industrial base than mars. SSTO is not a challenge even for low performance propellants and 1950s technology. Moon will have a space elevator and a space catapult thingy decades (centuries?) before Earth (or Mars) for simple engineering reasons.
For example you need to invent whole new materials and technological stacks to invent a way to make an Earth space elevator and it may not even be possible no matter how much money we spend. WRT moon, no biggie just no one willing to drop the dough on it. Could do it tomorrow if someone sprung for the launch fees, nothing technologically interesting about the maximum stress, etc. Of course worse case payload recovery on the earth if the tether snapped is a mostly passive heat shield and parachute but a moon elevator would basically be a lunar lander for safety reasons. Of course every time a full lander makes it up you can send it down empty and sell/use the propellant in space, very profitable that.
Mars could be cool, don't get me wrong, but just saying the Moon is clearly better.
Agreed we're sorta in that 1500s 1600s era of Europeans colonizing the Americas. OK so you can go there and there's a lot of stuff there. But tha'ts there and we're here. Now what? Inevitably in some sort of economic sense in many centuries the moon will surpass the earth. The gravity well is just so much better. But we're gonna have a lot of decades till then of "why the hell would anyone want to move from London to Massachusetts?" equivalent.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 01 2016, @04:10PM
"And the Earth L4 and L5 asteroid fields"
Say what?
There's exactly one tiny asteroid [wikipedia.org], no field. And nobody seriously wants to visit it.
Other than that, the Mone is the only target that makes sense as a permanent off world habitat. And only because its close enough, not because any of the so-called industrial base ideas are feasible.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 01 2016, @04:49PM
All that matters is that initial costs will be met, and that bases can be self-sustaining with no resupply. If both are true, there will be bases on plenty of places including Mars, Ceres, Callisto, Enceladus.
Obviously, creating a self-sustaining habitat will not be easy, but the ingredients are out there. Plenty of ice water, the possibility of using fusion power instead of solar, robots to manufacture necessary materials. It might only be enough for a handful of people, but that's a start.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:28PM
Only one has been discovered at the moment, but we haven't yet really looked - due to the geometry involved we would fully expect them to be virtually invisible from Earth, and any cataloging project would require a relatively sensitive space telescope in a solar orbit considerably smaller than Earth's
If you don't build an industrial base on the moon, then what exactly would be the point of going? I mean I suppose you could build a resort for the ultra-rich, but that's a pretty small clientele, and once the low-g novelty wears off it makes for a pretty bleak destination. Especially compared to orbital resorts which would be cheaper to construct and a lot faster to reach.
Once we're ready to start mining the moon for rocket fuel and/or raw materials, it will be a wonderful asset for expanding into space. Until then, it's just a barren rock.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 01 2016, @04:33PM
We know some of the technologies that are coming or may be coming that would lower the cost of human space exploration:
Along with big developments, every aspect of the technology needed will get cheaper and better: solar panels, robots needed to construct habitats, drilling technologies (ask me to find the link for this one). Even computers will continue to get better for at least a couple of decades if we can manage to scale CPUs vertically.
There may be a "space bubble", but if asteroid mining succeeds and can deliver some value to people not leaving Earth, there will be a boom. Sustainable living is also important, because if you can have a colony on an inhospitable rock like Mars that is self-sufficient and doesn't require significant resupply from Earth, then you only need to cover the initial costs to make it viable. Billionaires and governments are likely to start this movement, but if it costs just millions to fly enough robots and stuff to create a factory, living quarters, greenhouses, etc., others will be able to follow. It won't be a lot of humans, but it's the sustainability that is the point.
I said "millions" because with the right planning and significant drops in shipping costs, it could be possible to construct a habitat on the Moon or Mars for less than a billion. It could require flying semi-autonomous robots years in advance on the cheapest flights possible, and significant use of local resources in order to construct buildings and tools. The food will already be growing before the human settlers land.
In the short term (100 years) I expect human colonization on the Moon, Mars, Ceres, Callisto, and Enceladus. In the long term (200-500 years), I think we will put humans or at least robots on every solid thing in the solar system. Including smaller asteroids and TNOs/KBOs like Pluto, Sedna, 2015 RR245, etc. If there is a Neptune-like "Planet Nine" hiding in the outer solar system, that means even more satellites for us to land on.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]