Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday August 01 2016, @02:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the which-ones-brought-their-towels? dept.

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 .


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 01 2016, @04:10PM

    by frojack (1554) on Monday August 01 2016, @04:10PM (#382658) Journal

    "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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 01 2016, @04:49PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday August 01 2016, @04:49PM (#382684) Journal

    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

    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday August 03 2016, @03:28PM (#383616)

    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.