Print 42 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Mar 15 at 4:41 PM

  (Source: TriStar Pictures)
NASA already responded to the results, saying it will conduct studies of its own

Astronauts have the ability to see planets and other space-related beings in ways most of us never will, but new research shows that astronauts could potentially lose their vision completely by living out this profession.

The University of Texas Medical School at Houston recently performed tests on astronauts who had spent more than one month in space, and found that they had eyeball and brain tissue damage.

Texas researchers studied 27 astronauts who had participated in long-duration NASA missions. Out of the 27, nine had an expansion of the cerebral spinal fluid space surrounding the optic nerve; six of them had a flattening of the rear of the eyeball; four of them had a bulging of the optic nerve, and three of them had changes in their pituitary gland and its connection to the brain.

All of the astronauts studied spent an average of 108 days in space, either on a space shuttle mission or spending time on the International Space Station (ISS). The researchers found that the issues these astronauts have are similar to those caused by intracranial hypertension, where pressure in the brain presses against the eye sockets and skull.

"Microgravity-induced intracranial hypertension represents a hypothetical risk factor and a potential limitation to long-duration space travel," said Professor Larry Kramer, leader of the study at the University of Texas Medical School. "Consider the possible impact on proposed manned missions to Mars or even the concept of space tourism. Can risks be eventually mitigated? Can abnormalities detected be completely reversed?

"The next step is confirming the findings, defining causation and working towards a solution based on solid evidence."

The study has already grabbed NASA's attention. While no astronauts are being pulled from any programs at this point, the space agency plans to look further into these results.

"NASA has placed this problem high on its list of human risks, has initiated a comprehensive programme to study its mechanisms and implications, and will continue to closely monitor the situation," said William Tarver, head of flight medicine at NASA's Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Texas.

If these results were proven true, it could throw a wrench in many space plans such as SpaceX's idea to develop a reusable launch system for cheap spaceflight and Mars settlement. There are also plans to send an astronaut to an asteroid by 2025 and another to Mars by 2030.

Sources:, ABC News, The Pioneer

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Well.
By geddarkstorm on 3/14/2012 12:32:25 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, we could engineer extreme resistance to radiation of all forms, in theory.

Deinococcus radiodurans is a soil dwelling gram positive bacteria that can survive, without any apparent loss of colony virility and life, over 6 kGray (6000 Gray) of radiation. For reference, a human will die in 14 days if exposed to ~15 Gray of radiation, and a Neutron bomb air burst gives off ~1 kGray of radiation.

If we had a nuclear war that covered this whole planet, Deinococcus wouldn't even notice.

How does it do it? Through incredible repair mechanisms that use most of the features that are already in E. coli (which can survive up to 200 Gray of radiation). In fact, it seems mostly due to one double stranded DNA break repair protein that's key to its resistance. It also seems to hoard more Manganese than normal, which apparently protects proteins from ionizing damage, thus keeping the repair proteins alive to fix things up.

So, it is well within the realm of biology to give you the ability to survive space, and even the radiation of a nuclear blast. How do we port this to humans? Utterly unknown and no idea. The eukaryotic chromosomes are far more complex than prokaryotic. But that potential is there.

But if we could engineer this, we'd still be human, as it'd just be the addition of or a tweaking of a few of our repair enzymes and metal homeostatic transporters, nothing major. Still makes me squeamish to think of genetic engineering at all, as that's such a painfully slippery slope, and it's so easy to screw over genetics.

RE: Well.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
I vote we just develop energy shields ala Star Trek before we start monkeying around with genetic engineering. Ships and habitats will have to be shielded from radiation anyway, so I see no benefit in going to those extremes and hacking on our genomes.

RE: Well.
By geddarkstorm on 3/14/2012 3:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
I concur completely.

A magnetic shield like our planet would protect ionized cosmic rays. Then all you need is a double layered hull with a gamma/x-ray absorbent layer between, and voila, radiation shielded just as well as our planet, if not better (depending on technological wonders). The energy from the gamma/x-rays being absorbed could even be used to help run the magnetic shield dynamo.

Considering the low Gauss rating of our planet's magnetic field is below that of a weak refrigerator magnet, it shouldn't take that much power to make an equally strong field for a small space ship.

RE: Well.
By Kurz on 3/14/2012 6:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
Only issue is that the Magnetic field of the Earth is huge. Which allows the weak effect the magnetic field to displace that radiation slowly over a long stretch of space.

Though it would be interesting the see the energy required for the similar effect... Though I bet it is much higher than you think.

RE: Well.
By geddarkstorm on 3/15/2012 1:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, actually I misspoke. The Earth's magnetic field is only 0.25–0.65 gauss at the surface of the poles (where it's strongest), while a refridgerator magnet is around 100 gauss. The field at the core of the Earth hits about 50 gauss, which is why I was thinking of "weak refridgerator magnet". In truth, the field that protects us is vanishingly weak.

Remember, a space ship is not the size of Earth, nor does it need anywhere near the same size of field. See where it was demonstrated that a magnetic bubble of only a few 100 meters across would protect a ship from solar wind and cosmic rays, making a trip to Mars safe and possible (in that regard).

Also, simply increasing the immediate intensity would be enough and allow a smaller field. That is, a surface skin field of 50 gauss would deflect pretty much any cosmic rays. There in, the total power to generate the magnetic field is easily doable (I work with a 14.6 Tesla super magnet, or 146000 gauss. Being super conducting, it takes no energy to maintain, and certainly didn't take that much to energize in the first place), and with super conductors, would require NO constant input of energy, just an initial energization.

Magnetic shields are a piece of cake to make it appears, the problem is what they will do the ship and its electronics themselves, as it'll put strain on the whole vessel by pulling it inward or outward towards the source of magnetization. So, a ship would have to be designed with it in mind. Definitely something we could figure out, as we are already working on it.

RE: Well.
By JediJeb on 3/15/2012 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
One problem to overcome would be the effect of the poles of the magnetic field funneling the cosmic rays/solar wind inward, which is what causes the Norther Lights during periods of solar flares. You wouldn't want crew near the poles of the magnetic field for fear of blasting them with a beam of the very radiation you are trying to protect them from.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki