Astronauts' eyeballs deformed by long missions in space, study finds Flattening at the back of their

[midnight]

eyes may be caused by increased pressure of cerebrospinal fluid in microgravity.

Brain scans of Nasa astronauts who have returned to Earth after more than a month in space have revealed potentially serious abnormalities that could jeopardise the future of long-term space missions.

Doctors examined 27 astronauts who had flown long-duration missions with the US space agency and found a pattern of deformities in their eyeballs, optic nerves and pituitary glands that remains unexplained.

The problems are similar to those caused by intracranial hypertension, a rare medical condition that occurs when pressure inside the skull rises and presses on the brain and the backs of the eyes.

Medical crews at Nasa and four other major space agencies in Europe, Russia, Japan and Canada are now investigating the issue. The agencies are screening astronauts before, during and after space missions to learn more about when the problem arises and the likely cause.






http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/13/nasa-astronauts-eyeballs-deformed-space

[caseymoz]

1. What a setback for human space travel!

This is a nail in the coffin.

Too bad we've screwed the environment in the meantime.

[siligut]

2. While I agree the threat of induced cranial hypertension is a fatal flaw

There is a work around in progress. Artificial gravity has been in the works since 2004, already studied to combat the other problems that occur with prolonged weightlessness. http://www.space.com/558-artificial-gravity-spin-idea.html

[caseymoz]

3. Actually, that's been looked at since 1966

It was depicted explicitly in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the technology has gone nowhere since. They knew that far back that the effects of zero-g were not physiologically good. The technology has gone nowhere since.

All this tells us is that the detrimental effects of zero-g are both much quicker and far worse than we thought. It turns a centrifuge from a contingency plan just in case the effects are that bad to a necessity.

And here's the problem: you would need a large motor that would has to run through the trip. Not only do you have higher energy demands, but it's another essential bit of equipment that needs to be lubricated and maintained, that could break, and for which spare parts would have to be stored, for when the break downs are reparable.

Then I think you have the problem that it's actually less efficient to run a centrifuge in space. Your ship is smaller, lighter and not anchored down to anything. So, instead of spinning just itself, your centrifuge will be ever-so-slightly spinning your ship.

There are only two ways humankind is going to move into space: the hard way and the easy way. The hard way is if living on earth becomes, in fact, even less hospitable than space. It would be out of desperation, and it better not be this way because it'll most likely not be survivable.

The other way is luck: if physics cuts us some slack. Such as something discovered at CERN, or maybe quantum computing will show us something new, like storing our minds in a sort of Matrix or optimizing us physically. Make no mistake, this would be something huge and unforeseeable. You can't count on it. So far the realistic outlook is bleak.

The two greatest, most catastrophic technological failures of the twentieth century were space travel and fusion energy. They were devastating because humankind's course was unsustainable without them.

[siligut]

4. It hasn't been looked at since?

So basically, problems with zero-g have been known since 1966 and the one solution that scientists have come up with is cost prohibitive and mired with problems? And we have still pushed forward with space travel, but have not sought another solution?

[caseymoz]

5. Seeking solutions, but not finding them.

One frequently does necessarily equate with the other. Not seeking another solution is like saying we haven't been seeking another solution for fusion energy. Short of being able to generate actual gravity, which is still the most mysterious, most inexplicable force in the universe, no other answers but a centrifuge come to mind.

But they have to push ahead regardless.

Believe me, manned excursions into space are now going to begin to use prototype centrifuges. And it's not like material, energy and electronics technology hasn't made centrifuges more cheaper they were in the 1960s. It just isn't viable enough to make it practical for a long trip where there's no escape to earth and no spare parts on the way.

[siligut]

6. Thank you for such a logical and informed reply

I wouldn't try to do brain surgery with my current knowledge so I can't imagine I would think of an alternative to create gravity. What I did think of is the possibility of smaller centrifuges, placed strategically, like for sleeping quarters or work stations. As I wonder if eight hours or so of gravity a day might be enough to mitigate the effects of zero-g. Would small centrifuges be feasible?

[caseymoz]

7. They'd be less efficient

They do have to study this more to see how much that could help. Remember the astronauts they studied had no centrifuges. It might take a long time to find out if a dose of "gravity" a day is effective, given the small sample they have to study, the time it takes to deploy the hardware, and of course, the expense.

[siligut]

8. But you think it is feasible?

That gives us hope that one day man may be able to travel to distant planets, that is all I am hoping for.

[caseymoz]

9. I'm hoping for that, too.

I'll put it like this: it's worth a try whether it's likely or not. It's not like we have a choice not to do it, or to do it half-assed.

[davidhaslanded]

10. I wonder

I wonder if this has to do with them in space, or maybe its their space helmet?

[bananas]

11. It doesn't affect women astronauts, only some men. nt