Vision Problems For Some Returning Astronauts 203
astroengine writes "A newly discovered affliction has some doctors wondering if astronauts traveling to Mars could have problems with their eyesight by the time they got there. About one-third of U.S. crew members aboard the ISS return with impaired vision, one case of which was permanent. The reason for the late discovery of this mysterious affliction is the reluctance of astronauts on active service to come forward — the risk of being grounded after complaining of blurry vision is considered too great."
Vision problems (Score:3, Funny)
at NASA in General, No?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/23/031217/neil-armstrong-to-nasa-youre-embarrassing [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]
One of many? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many other minor 'afflictions' from space travel are ignored/explained away that we haven't heard about for the exact same fear of being grounded...
Re:One of many? (Score:4, Funny)
Like Space Herpes, for one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, space herpes are problematic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-me2inj1nNw [youtube.com]
Re:One of many? (Score:5, Funny)
Which makes an excellent case for a masturbation-only policy while in space. Then they'll just have to worry about going... hey, wait a second!
Re: (Score:2)
Well played, sir.
Re:One of many? (Score:4, Insightful)
... which would be unprofessional and probably reckless behaviour on behalf of the astronauts. One can understand the emotional reasons, but the huge efforts made for their safety would be in vain if they are not honest about their capabilities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah but this isn't just a career, this is going into space. It's more exclusive than being a movie star. Once you're in that club, I bet you'd do anything to stay in.
Re: (Score:2)
Like drive across country in a diaper?
Re:One of many? (Score:5, Interesting)
... which would be unprofessional and probably reckless behaviour on behalf of the astronauts. One can understand the emotional reasons, but the huge efforts made for their safety would be in vain if they are not honest about their capabilities.
That's all nice and logical from the armchair, but take it from their point of view. They're Air Force pilots, who've spent years, maybe decades to get tht shot. Knowing that Deke Slayton was grounded for the better part of a decade for a minor heart flutter, you're simply not going to take the chance if you think it's not stopping you from doing your job. That's part of "Right Stuff" mentality. The very kind of personality you recruit for the job tends to foster that kind of disposition. It would be very interesting to get the Russian data on this... they're the endurance bears when it comes to long stays in space.
Re: (Score:2)
That presumes the Russians have the data... In general, they weren't really diligent about biomedical protocols and record keeping.
Re:One of many? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly why you should just devise tests for every required physical capacity, and administer them before every launch. The cost would be trivial compared to the cost of the launch.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no chance that story would happen. In reality, he'd get caught, and not go on the mission. Risk of billions in losses for taxpayers averted.
Re:One of many? (Score:5, Informative)
As a retired Navigator (17 years in KC-135's (A/E/R) I think that this post is absolutely correct on the mindset of flyers. They don't want be sick and go DNIF (Duties, Not Including Flying-- Grounded) and the schedulers sure don't want you off flying status. If you were grounded, once you got back on flying status, there was punishment in terms extra duty and crappy flights. I flew when I probably shouldn't have, but most everybody did. Maybe more information will come out now the shuttle program is over.
Re: (Score:3)
...if you think it's not stopping you from doing your job.
That is the exact problem right there (emphasis mine). The whole point of vision tests and minimum requirements is to decide if an astronaut's vision would keep them from doing their job. And the people developing and administering the tests are far better qualified to determine that than an emotionally-biased astronaut who is directly and strongly affected by the outcome.
Re:One of many? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pretty normal among regular air force and navy aircrew.
If you have to go see the flight surgeon, there are two outcomes. 1. remain on flight status, or 2. get removed from flight status. There is no 'up'. Hell...one of the Shuttle crew had Parkinsons [discovery.com] when he went up for the last time.
Re: (Score:2)
... which would be unprofessional and probably reckless behaviour on behalf of the astronauts. One can understand the emotional reasons, but the huge efforts made for their safety would be in vain if they are not honest about their capabilities.
It would be nice to be able to separate out the emotional component. However the last time I checked, American Astronauts are not imported from the Planet Vulcan.
Re: (Score:2)
It's such a competitive field, I'll bet that the ones that tend to be honest about their true capabilities never even make it into the program in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, from recent conversations with former astronauts, the vibrations at take off during Mercury/Gemini/Apollo were extremely uncomfortable, yet all astronauts reported only "minor rattling" least they be considered wimps.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many other minor 'afflictions' from space travel are ignored/explained away that we haven't heard about for the exact same fear of being grounded...
Have you never seen the Quatermass Experiment? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many other minor 'afflictions' from space travel are ignored/explained away that we haven't heard about for the exact same fear of being grounded...
I can't say much about the afflictions not reported, but as to the other minor afflictions that happen from space travel which NASA knows about (about as in their existence, not necessarily a full understanding) are:
- Changes to sense of balance, as the brain gets used to the new signals from the inner ear resulting from microgravity,
- Lower blood pressure as the heart has to work less, which can become a problem back on earth at 1G,
- Bone and muscle deterioration, as well as muscle scaffolding rearrangemen
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we could ask the Russians for their medical data on their extended duration trips. They put people on Mir for far more than 6 months at a time specifically to gather data on the medical effects of a trip-to-Mars length stay in space.
Or we could sit and pout about not having run the same experiments.
Maybe the Russian cosmonauts are predominantly gay, hence no vision issues.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you get free sunglasses, constantly.
Weightlessness is a Bitch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Could this possibly be a mix of weightlessness affecting the eye muscles, and a lack of distance focal points to focus the eye on during the stay in space? Because you basically have "anything inside the ISS", "any external part of the ISS you can see", "the earth" and "infinity", while on earth you have a huge range between local and distance - perhaps its a lack of exercising the distance focusing?
Re: (Score:2)
That's definitely a possibility and one that's a known risk for people that spend too much time on their computer.
Re: (Score:2)
lack of exercising the distance
My guess is that the breakdown of the relations within the feedback loop 'body movement' - 'perceivable outcome' may contribute a great deal to the condition.
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
As to the latter, the answer is almost certainly no. Otherwise, it would have shown up on submarine crewmen (especially SSBN crew) decades ago. Anyhow, if you read TFA, the problem is believed to be related to swelling in/adjacent to the optic nerve, not muscular.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We'll get right on that -- do you want it before or after we make the FTL drive?
Re: (Score:2)
Artificial gravity doesn't have to be Star Trek style. Even just a large spinning ring could provide 1G for the duration of the flight. There is no such low tech solution for FTL. Of course the spinning ring produces it's own problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more "flip a switch" artificial gravity than "big spinny ring" artificial gravity.
Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then add in the amount of extra space you'd need because you can now only use one side of every room, rather than the entire volume. Then multiply the result by the cost of getting things into space. ... and inflatable space stations start to sound like a better idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Until it`s punctured by something .. now that would be funny from down here! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because the non-inflatable spacecraft would fare so much better when they get punctured... When both options have the same fatal consequences, you can't use it as an argument for either.
Re: (Score:2)
Because our space programs are being run by tight-wads?
Re: (Score:2)
you might like to do the sums sometime to work out how big it would need to be for the difference between perceived gravity at your feet and in your head to be close enough not to be noticed (say, within 0.05g)
Why the heck would it need to be that precise? Especially since your feet would be the most affected. If you were topheavy it would be worse, but this will actually make your center of gravity appear lower. Your feet aren't that heavy... you could increase their weight by a lot more than 5% and not have a significant effect. Hell, you could increase their weight by a lot and it wouldn't feel any different than, say, wearing a pair of steel-toed boots.
And even if it's noticeable - so what? Circulatory proble
Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch (Score:4, Informative)
They might as well work on this first before doing stupid stuff like going to Mars. Once you have space stations which people can actually live on, going to Mars or elsewhere is much easier.
And in fact, once they have such space stations, going to Mars might actually be not as interesting as starting space colonies among the asteroid belt (for easier access to raw materials).
Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch (Score:4, Interesting)
Who said a torus? Just use a tether attached to some weight (maybe a few old satellites that need decommissioning). This way, you could have "gravity rooms" of any size, including the whole ISS. I suppose you might want to put the communication satellite at the center of gravity.
Maybe the possibility of a severed tethers sending the craft into the atmosphere is why they don't do this approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Some back of the napkin calculations, in order for a 2m tall person to have only 1% difference from head to toe, you're looking at a 200m radius and rotating at 2rpm. Worst case, that's about 45m/s if the tether broke. That's not sufficient to deorbit immediately unless you're already extremely low, and could easily be replaced by an emergency booster.
As for the counterweight, the best option would likely be to keep your last stage rather than discarding it into the atmosphere. You're going to have it wi
Re: (Score:2)
Given that we have a reasonable amount of data about radiation exposure at 1G, we can probably make at least an educated guess about what radiation does to eyes(and it definitely does have some known effects)...
Re: (Score:2)
* Doctors believe a redistribution of cerebral spinal fluid in weightlessness is involved.
That is a distinct possibility. The visual cortex in the occipital lobe is in the very bottom back of your skull, and sensitive to internal pressures. Scintillating Scotoma, for example, is related to this.
And no, no method of vision correction can help with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with going faster is that you would then overshoot Mars. The way you go to another planet (efficiently) is through a transfer orbit. Basically, Mars is in it's position because it is going faster than Earth (but it takes longer to go around the Sun since it is further out). To go from Earth to Mars, you accelerate to the same velocity as Mars, giving you a sort of spiral orbit until you reach the same orbit as the target planet. And if you time it right, your orbit and the target planet's or
Re: (Score:2)
It's better then that: you only need to accelerate to a suitably near orbit such that you get captured by Mars' gravity well and then just coast in.
So it's true (Score:3, Funny)
Your smartphone ... (Score:2)
... stop looking at it! Give your eyes a rest!
Seams all too reasonable (Score:2)
The eye is not all that mysterious in my mind. It's a liquid filled ball with a lens and a light sensitive surface. The focus of the lens is managed muscles which contract based on need for focus. But since this is a liquid filled ball, various other forces work against the eye such as gravity and atmospheric pressure.
I'm willing to bet that the cause of the problems have a great deal to do with changes in gravity and air pressure. To me this seems like an obvious thing which should have been considered
The best solution is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are other good reasons to make at least the first couple of trips be one-way. It allows the sending group to focus on keeping a crew alive. That is actually cheaper than coming up with a return vehicle and the fuel for it. By sending one-way, it gives them time to build a base out while doing research on the planet.
Re:The best solution is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, we can send a crew there QUICKLY via chemicals. We have the infrastructure for it. What we really need is a NERVA engine on a tug to push a BA unit or two, to get us to Mars
Re:The best solution is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is actually cheaper than coming up with a return vehicle and the fuel for it. By sending one-way, it gives them time to build a base out while doing research on the planet.
For efficiencies sake it would be best to have it built before humans land. The base will not be just for shelter, it will be for oxygen, electricity, and food production also.
Besides that the astronauts would require shelter while building their shelter the amount of food and supplies necessary to keep the astronauts alive while they built their habitat would exceed the cost of building a base with robots before they got there.
Re: (Score:2)
what if... their ship was their base!
Oh, now that's just batshit crazy right there. The UAW (United Alien Workers) wouldn't stand for it. No one is turning a damn wrench in this galaxy without union "help".
Sad part is you think this is a joke. Just watch...
Re: (Score:2)
You will need approximately half an acre per human just for food, a very very large amount of solar panels and/or a nuclear reactor as well as room for all the supplies the astronauts would need on the journey there. You would end up with a ship the size of a small town. Now I won't say that landing a ship the size of a small town on Mars is impossible, but it is improbable.
Re:The best solution is.... (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as there's a hot astronaut co-scientist with me, I'd be willing to make the one-way trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking this further, lets assume that most are not. Well, we are talking maybe 6-12 ppl that would be sent on one-way missions. It is VERY easy to locate ppl that would want this. But even when
Yeah (Score:2)
The reason for the late discovery of this mysterious affliction is the reluctance of astronauts on active service to come forward
Highly relevant in the absence of a manned space program. Also it sums it up pretty well: I want to have millions of government dollars spent on me to train me, house me and feed me, but I would rather pass up a chance at actually doing the job I am supposed to do even though it's likely I will never get a chance to do it again, because 1 out of 3 (less than half) of my colleagues have had eye problems. Yep, that's "the right stuff" right there. Now tell me again why is it you wanted to be an astronaut?
No
they're vs their (Score:2, Funny)
Ask the Russians (Score:2)
The pool of American astronauts who this may apply to is small, but there's a number of Russians who've been in orbit for long periods.
Re: (Score:2)
What's there to report? Have them take a standard visual acuity test (one of those optometrist's signs with rows of letters that become smaller). Make sure they can't cheat by learning the chart beforehand.
The advantage of including the Russians is that they've been doing long flights for far longer than the ISS, so it'll give insight into the long-term effects (if any). Also, many of the Salyut/Mir-era Russians won't be on flight status anymore anyway so won't have an incentive to lie.
Atmosphere (Score:2)
More knowledgable professionals have probably already asked this, but I'm still curious: how closely does the air mixture and atmospheric pressure on the ISS match typical earth conditions?
Eyes breath.
well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I walked into recruiting stations over and over again; sometimes years apart until I found a recruiter with an immense tolerance for bullshit. Wouldn't you know it that with enough visits to doctors, MEPS, paperwork going up to Navy BUMED, and everything else I was able to get in. Waiver for Crohn's, waiver for my eyes since they're also complete crap, and moral waiver for being a naughty juvenile on one occassion. They make waivers for everything
Queue four years of active duty service; rank of Sergeant, Good Conduct Medal, NAM, etc., etc. I probably wasn't so much your most likely candidate for success in such an environment and was told lots of times buy lots of people that I couldn't. You're too sick. You're too smart. You're too weak. You can't listen to people telling you what to do...
So, some things to take away from my story:
1.) Fuck everyone who tells you you can't do something.
2.) Everyone is imperfect; make what you can of your lot.
3.) A lot of the general rules in our system just don't work in side cases (like say Crohn's being a permanent disqualifier from military service.)
4.) That's why there's a waiver for everything.
5.) Fuck everyone who tells you you can't do something.
Having been through all that though I can DEFINITELY understand where they are coming from; it is infuriating beyond words to be told you can't do something you know you are full well capable of. I could shoot, I could run, I could do the MOS that was assigned to me (went in open contract), I could swim, and I could do anything else that was asked of me. And I did. When I got out I had a job with a high tech company I am sure everyone here is familiar with as a System Administrator before I even finished my terminal leave and used the G.I. Bill to get my college degree as well.
Some people just don't want to make excuses. They don't want to be a statistic. They don't want to be one of the numbers. They don't want to have one of the myriad bullshit mental conditions 99% of America can be diagnosed with if they just see a doctor so that they can give up lay down and profess that they were willing but unable because of the lot they got in life. They don't want to go around for the rest of their life saying, I tried to join X branch of the military but couldn't because they had flat feet. Not everyone wants to be a charity case if you can believe it. Some of us want to earn our keep and make something of our selves. It is the idea that our country was born on. It's the idea that is lost and will be the cause of this countries demise as well. I feel for these people immensely when their vision starts to go and they have to deal with the possibility of some flight surgeon screwing with them.
Words to live by: Nothing. Will. Ever. Stop. Me.
Re:well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trying your best, pulling your weight, and being persistent to do something you want to do is a hell of a lot different that jeopardizing your life and the lives of your crew because you want to go into space again. The difference between your story (which I commend, it is very inspirational) and theirs, is they selfishly risking the lives of others.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think a Marine that's not fully physically cable isn't jeopardizing the lives of his squadmates in combat?
More power (Score:2)
Going to Mars on chemical rockets is never going to work very well. That's a job that needs nuclear power. That was known back in the 1950s. The US and the USSR both had major nuclear rocket development efforts in the 1950s in the 1970s.
With nuclear rockets, a trip to Mars should take about a month.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is testing ion rockets.
There is no reason to rush humans... (Score:2, Interesting)
...into space. We have a thousand years, two thousand, ten if we like.
Send few humans and many probes. Our supporting, non-space-exploration tech will progress too.
Re:There is no reason to rush humans... (Score:4, Informative)
That explains a lot, actually (Score:2)
I can guarantee it. (Score:2)
By the time the U.S. OK's another Mars mission those astronauts are going to be in their 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they require astronauts to have 20/20 vision, hence the risk of grounding.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought 'vision' would be part of the standard medical exam when they return from space.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought 'vision' would be part of the standard medical exam when they return from space.
Probably a 'blinded' ex-astronaut in the command chain had the 'insight' to enlighten the doctors to not include it anymore.
CC.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure they require astronauts to have 20/20 vision, hence the risk of grounding.
Yes, but glasses are acceptable. The uncorrected vision requirements for non-pilot astronauts are pretty low; or were when I looked at the astronaut application process years ago.
If you look at pictures of John Young (first shuttle commander) in space you'll notice he was wearing glasses.
Re:Lasik (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be? Its a permanent ablation of the cornea, changing its shape - if it were ruined by high g-force, then so would normal sight.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason why the older style of cutting it open with a scalpel would result in somebody being barred from being a fighter pilot. The technology they use is somewhat different, it's akin to grinding a lens down to change its shape.
The issue is that they cut a flap in the cornea to do the work, and there's a small chance that excessive g-forces could cause it to flap open.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
PRK has been allowed by the USAF for all aviation positions since 2001, and Lasik was allowed in 2004 for particular aviation positions, and in 2007 this restriction was removed completely.
Fighter pilots can certainly fly after having laser eye surgery.
Also, you can fly in the USAF without having perfect vision - according to the following Air Force Times, 41% of active USAF pilots require corrective lenses to carry out their duties.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-force-eye-surgery-widens-pilo [airforcetimes.com]
Re:Lasik (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lasik (Score:4, Informative)
No, the flap completely reseals permanently afterward - after a week or so there is no chance of the flap reoccuring because it no longer exists.
Yes, I have had laser eye surgery. Yes, I investigated such things thoroughly beforehand.
And yes, I fly aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the flap completely reseals after a week or two, unless the surgery was botched and an air bubble was left under the flap - if the surgery is done correctly, there is no flap after several days, its completely connected with the underlying tissue. That is why you stop needing eye lubrication (fake tears) after several weeks - because the nerve endings reattach and grow back. They can't do that if the flap doesn't completely seal...
Multiple laser eye surgeons assured me that there was absolutely no cha
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple laser eye surgeons assured me that there was absolutely no chance of flap movement after 14 days when I researched it.
Funny--my father in law, an ophthalmologist, makes a great living fixing the corneas of people who believed exactly what you were told.
This is why I still wear glasses. My vision is too important to leave to surgeons who say "absolutely no chance" just as I wouldn't like to fly with people who say "absolutely no chance"
Re: (Score:2)
Its not really funny, the flap has nothing to do with cornea damage - and I never said there were no risks to the procedure itself (there are), I just heavily dispute the claim that it was possible for the flap to move after a significant amount of time (its not).
And after research, I would agree with their "absolutely no chance" of a correctly repositioned flap being moveable again after a week, let alone a year - and as my treatment involved five appointments during the first month (one later the same day
Re: (Score:2)
The theory is that this is caused by an enlargement of the optic nerve. Lasik would not help in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Lasik won't help much with the swollen optic nerve.
Re:so let me get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The visual degradation is from the optic nerve, not from a mishaped cornea, if you had RTFA.
Not sure if he'd understand even if he read TFA. Most people these days assume that since we have laser, all eye conditions can be resolved. No, they can't. If the problem is the optic nerve (glaucoma for example), the clarity of the lens (cataracts) or a host of other problems, laser won't help you. It helps only for the case of a misshapen eye lens - and in case of e.g. keratoconus not even then.
Re: (Score:2)
The visual degradation is from the optic nerve, not from a mishaped cornea, if you had RTFA.
Not sure if he'd understand even if he read TFA. Most people these days assume that since we have laser, all eye conditions can be resolved. No, they can't. If the problem is the optic nerve (glaucoma for example), the clarity of the lens (cataracts) or a host of other problems, laser won't help you. It helps only for the case of a misshapen eye lens - and in case of e.g. keratoconus not even then.
Speaking of reading TFA...
"..."Nobody knows why pseudotumor cerebri occurs..."
"With a relatively small pool of subjects to study -- around 30 U.S. astronauts have lived on the International Space Station -- doctors have not been able to determine if age, gender or previous spaceflight experience affect vision loss."
Hrm, sounds like a whole lot of statistics-by-dartboard if you ask me, since we seem to be clueless on Earth as to root cause, much less space. I guess it's good that we're identifying this now as a possible issue before sending people into deep space, but let's at least try and slow down the roll on the hype train. We have enough hype in the media already these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because lasers are magic and can fix all vision problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Because lasers are magic and can fix all problems!
To paraphrase an old adage:
If lasers aren't solving your problem, then you just aren't using enough of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Given what we know about people's response to incentives(ie. in situations valuing the "right stuff", people generally under-report problems they can get away with concealing), and given the importance of having top-performing people in mission critical situations, I would have expected the post and pre flight medical checks to be good enough to detect vision issues. Visual acuity testing isn't the cutting edge of rocket surgery...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not rocket science, but by the same token, with enough motivation it can be hard to detect. Even for those that aren't trying to cheat, but have good memory, the charts they typically use are somewhat less than helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, i started wearing glasses about 6 years ago and have been getting worse eyes and needing new prescriptions about ever 2 years. The first couple of times I went to get tested I was trying hard to read as much as I could from the chart feeling that I was being tested on how well I could read the letters. later I realized it would go faster if I just told the doctor I could probably guess some of the letters right, but they were still too blurry to be considered correct vision. My pride in getting the
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you're not straining your eyes to try to figure out exactly what each letter is, you're fine. Get enough of them wrong and it's obvious that you can't see them well at that size and distance. Just say what it looks like and keep going until the doctor tells you to stop. It's unlikely that you'll guess enough letters correctly to trick the doctor into thinking you can see them if you really can't.
Re: (Score:2)
laser eye surgery works, how can instantly improve vision not be on the top of thier to do list.
And is generally frowned upon by NASA due to concerns about pressure change effects. Or was as of a few years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
According to this NIH study an enormous amount of LEO astronauts have reported seeing phosphenes while in orbit. These are speculated to derive from background radiation in space. Clearly, more study is needed--and more shielding.
According to this [mult-sclerosis.org] they are caused (at least on Earth in the general population) by mechanical trauma to a damaged nerve. If they're already seeing damaged optic nerves in returning astronauts, it makes sense that the phosphenes in orbit are symptomatic.