Disease May Prevent Manned Journey To Mars 177
Pickens writes "Science Daily News reports that human missions to Mars and all other long-term space flights might be compromised by disease, first because space travel appears to weaken astronauts' immune systems; and second, because it increases the virulence and growth of microbes. 'When people think of space travel, often the vast distances are what come to mind first,' says Jean-Pol Frippiat from Nancy-University in France, 'but even after we figure out a way to cover these distances in a reasonable amount of time, we still need to figure out how astronauts are going to overcome disease and sickness.' Frippiat says studies show that immune systems of both people and animals in space flight conditions are significantly weaker than their grounded counterparts and that common pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli and Staphylococcus reproduce more rapidly in space flight conditions, leading to increased risk of contamination, colonization and serious infection."
two words... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:two words... (Score:5, Informative)
WTF? How is a first post mentioning a "diversified ecosystem" redundant? Your immune system responds better if there are constant challenges to it, which is what a diversified ecosystem does. It also tends to help keep pathogens numbers down, since even pathogens have predators/competitors in a diversified ecosystem.
Re:two words... (Score:4, Interesting)
For any kind of successful very longterm space missions one needs heavy shielding at least equivalent to the atmosphere we have down here on earth. More radiation (even living at higher altitudes with less atmospheric shielding, or even near an ozone hole region) increases the rates of mutations miscarriages and cancers, but also the rate or adaptation to new environments. One of the dangers with non-well-shielded space travel is faster evolution than down here on Earth. But multilayer shielding can compensate for that, and keep mutation levels to lower than natural.
That brings up the question, that maybe lack of radiation is a cause of sicknesses, in a sense of not keeping the immune system well trained. People who live in a completely sterile bacteria free environment have very weak immune systems that lacks training. One still needs a flora to coexist inside the body if for nothing else, for composting intestinal contents. Those same bacteria can cause illnesses, if not kept under check by the immune systems constant vigilance. Still, as far as radiation goes, people coming from areas of high background radiation, such as India, don't seem to suffer much compared to people living in low background radiation areas. If anything, fluoride in their drinking water is the bigger problem for them, and background radiation is a relative nonissue. Perhaps a certain dose of background radiation is like a vitamin, increases health by keeping the immune system trained.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, as far as radiation goes, people coming from areas of high background radiation, such as India
India has a traditionally high population density. You need to find a better example that doesn't have enormous alternate factors for explaining disease resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Three words... (Score:2, Interesting)
Your immune system responds better if there are constant challenges to it, which is what a diversified ecosystem does.
Lots of sex.
Without condoms (and with swallowing). Regular exchange of bodily fluids also keeps your immune system ticking over. Regular sex might help morale as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your immune system responds better if there are constant challenges to it, which is what a diversified ecosystem does.
Lots of sex.
Without condoms (and with swallowing). Regular exchange of bodily fluids also keeps your immune system ticking over. Regular sex might help morale as well.
No but yeah but yeah but yeah no but yeah no but yeah... ...but no
because that may result in this [littlebritain.tv]! And that's no diversity what you see although it may be interesting to watch this move around Mars for a while and it cleans things up here a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:two words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm, I was thinking those words were gonna be: selective breeding.
Until that works out, I suggest we focus on telescopes and probes, rovers, and those things that float in seas of frozen methane. Also as a way to reduce our carbon emissions by using lower weight vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:two words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, yes...
There are two basic possibilities here:
1) low gravity enhances microbe growth. -- Eh, probably not enough in itself, since the microbial balance would probably still be roughly the same.
2) if the environment is made too sterile, it actually encourages pathogens, which are normally kept largely in check by other microbes. This is actually the root of the problem with hospitals and resistant infections today, to the point that some are considering returning to a less-sterile general environment. -- Easily solved; just don't sterilize the equipment in the first place. In short, maintain the diversified natural microbial population, to discourage overgrowth of pathogens.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I thought of that, but remember in the bloodstream things are being tumbled in all directions all the time, because it's not a turbulence-free system. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage, I agree should probably be looked at -- just because something evolved a certain way doesn't mean it's the best system, only that it was good enough for reproductive survival. It may be that forcibly orienting everything a certain way aids antibodies -- or it may make no difference at all -- or may even b
one word... (Score:2)
yes.
Or to elaborate a bit, I wonder if we're not neglecting a bigger problem in the other direction. It seems like we're constantly discovering greater degrees of mutualism between humans and the micro-organisms swarming all over (and through) our bodies. A common example is our digestive dependence on bacteria in the intestines, and the recently discovered role of the appendix in maintaining the intestinal culture [1,2].
While I'm not aware of any short term (longest stay in space 400-500 days) effects, w
MORE POWER! (Score:2)
"...the Orion design would have worked by dropping small shaped charge fission or thermonuclear explosives out the rear of a vehicle, detonating them 200 feet (60 m) out, and catching the blast with a thick steel or aluminum pusher plate....The 'base design' consisted of a 4000 ton model planned for ground launch from Jackass Flats, Nevada. Each 0.15 KT (sea-level yield) blast would add 30 mph (50 km/h, 13.89m/s) to the craft's velocity. A graphite based oil would be sprayed on the pusher plate before each
MiR? ISS? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MiR? ISS? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure that those people had constant refuellings with air over the years (maintenance). There isn't in a closed environment like a shuttle to Mars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I would posit that the first step would be a station or stationary ship, in space, to run a "no movement" drill for the trip to Mars.
If it takes 2 years, then that ship has to last 2 years without any help unless there is an extreme emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I would posit that the first step would be a station or stationary ship, in space, to run a "no movement" drill for the trip to Mars.
If it takes 2 years, then that ship has to last 2 years without any help unless there is an extreme emergency.
That's not a bad idea, with the shuttles' EOL coming up quick, they should get on this. Have a bumper number of Soyuz resupplies, and take up as much resupply as you can with the remaining shuttle launches, get 6 new 'nauts up there and let them stew for 2 years or as long as you can before sending up another Soyuz resupply.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't in a closed environment like a shuttle to Mars.
I don't think that that is really true or relevant. Even the long duration ISS expeditions typically had only 1 or 2 Progress spacecrafts dock with them during the mission. I would imagine that any deep space missions would have provisions kept in lockers or modules that would be opened in time (i.e., whatever perturbations are caused by a Progress supply mission would be similar to that caused by opening a previously closed supply module). BTW,
Re:MiR? ISS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We (as a species) have experience of running two closed environments. One is going badly down the pan after a few tens of thousands of years of human use ; the other is about a billionth of the size (real billion) and survived about 2 weeks before they had to start adding some molecules and removing others.
Closed environments are something that our species are going to have to learn about one of these centuries, if only for getting to Alpha Centaur
Re:MiR? ISS? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:MiR? ISS? (Score:4, Informative)
That brings another problem : if you keep the environment completely pathogen free , the immunity of the people there will drop significantly , since it is not being stimulated.
So , when they come home , they will immediately get sick.
Re:MiR? ISS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Antibodies don't remain in the body forever.
That's the one of the reasons that you need to vaccinate again after a few years.
And also , pathogens mutate , so your body will have to adapt to it , in order to fight it . Which it can't do in this case. ,that will only be a problem after years , not after a few months.
Offcourse
And it will certainly become a problem if the trip takes generations
Re: (Score:2)
438 day is nothing if NASA uses a VASIMIR rocket, previous stories on Slashdot [slashdot.org] have said they could get there in a 39 days.
Re: (Score:2)
Beware of the dreaded SPACE HERPES!!! (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't a first post, but it's the only Ice Pirates reference on Slashdot.
Sterile (Score:2)
Re:Sterile (Score:5, Interesting)
not possible (Score:4, Insightful)
While getting rid of salmonella is good, you can't get rid of all disease causing bacteria. And if the environment you live in is too sterile, your body just becomes more susceptible to other infections and to auto-immune disease.
Injecting antibiotics is about the worst thing you can do because it really messes up your bacterial ecology. Bacteria are a natural part of your body, and if you start killing them with antibiotics, things go wrong. Antibiotics should really only be taken when there is a serious infection present.
In addition to artificial gravity (via rotation), the solution may be to challenge the body with other microbes that are known to be not too harmful, similar to "pro-biotic drinks".
Re:Sterile (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats what I was thinking. Surely a small capsule with a handful of people surrounded by thousands of miles of near-vacuum is about as close to a clean-room environment as you can get.
Sterilize everything, let them spend a blissful year or two in splendid good health, then worry about their poor shattered immune systems when they get back.
Re: (Score:2)
rotate it (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not rotate the ship for "artificial gravity"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Instead of making the spaceship that large, they could attach the living quarters to each end of a very long cable, and then slowly rotate the ship. In the center of the cable, they could place a zero-G section which would contain sensors, and possibly
Re:rotate it (Score:4, Funny)
Put a spinning deck inside the spacecraft. Then the astronuats can run around the rim to get exercise .
Oh and put a manual switch for the pod bay door on the outside of the ship in case the computer runs amok.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not if the spaceship is inflatable. (Score:5, Funny)
So I am not the only one that wants to take something inflatable with me if I have to go to Mars? Excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you want to go down this route, it would make a whole lot more sense to take an inflated structure to Venus.
Attack of the Zeppelin Gypsy Queens from Venus (Score:2)
Actually Venus and balloons do go together.
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200210/000020021002A0351950.php [sciencelinks.jp]
http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2009/01/asrg-missions-venus-balloon.html [blogspot.com]
Long-term, what if we built a whole Cloud City up there where the atmosphere's thin-ish and the sulphuric acid rain slowed to a romantic drizzle? Maybe mine stuff from the atmosphere? There'd be one rule: don't look down, and don't breathe in. Two rules. Don't look down, don't breathe in, and don't tease the jellysquids. Thr
meat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Why do we care about sending our meatbag selves to other planets? I'd be more
> productive if we could just send some strong AI to do it for us.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us shall go on to the stars".
You are more than welcome to stay right there in your mother's basement and watch. You'll be safe and warm. No need to go out into the big scary world at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah sure, the solution to the problem isn't something that's possible but something that doesn't exist yet and might never exist. I say we beam up some strong AI hard-light holograms!
Re:meat (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to say what happens when metal/silicon gets smarter than meat. I am meat, and I care about meat, and green plants like trees too. I chop wood, but I want to see trees in general exist forever. In a sense trees are my very distant siblings, and we share a common eukaryote ancestor going back 2 billion years ago. I also care about non eukaryote life, with whom I share a common ancestor going back to 3 billion years ago. Metal/silicon machines and automation that I create can help me get less tired and get things done that I can't do myself, and that's a big deal, but I don't want to make it so good that I have to fight or compete against it, because I know I would lose. One has to be careful with developing super strong AI if one wants to survive. Can cooperation between metal/silicon and meat be guaranteed forever? What happens when a smarter predator than us appears? Will we be to them as chickens are to us? And more importantly, do they get judged the same way during last judgment day as we do and go to the same Inferno or Paradiso that we do for committing sins?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and then the big robot we leave behind to be in charge of the cleanup operation gets crossed with a nuke and goes berserk.
Seriously speaking, I'd rather we stay put and take care of mother earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously speaking, I'd rather we stay put and take care of mother earth.
Earth doesn't need "care". All of the disruption of mankind is just another event like an good-sized asteroid collision or a big basalt flood event. Merely leaving it alone for a century would eliminate or bind up most pollution. Being "caretakers" for a planet that doesn't need us is a rather pathetic form of existence.
Re: (Score:2)
"and then the big robot we leave behind to be in charge of the cleanup operation gets crossed with a nuke and goes berserk."
That's the plot of Wall*E!
"Two rogue robots, armed with plasma cannons, rampage across a devastated Earth before breaking into a spaceship to terrorise the last human survivors and unleash a robot revolt..."
Re: (Score:2)
*WHOOSH*
Try Vectorman
Re: (Score:2)
"You need somewhere to send yourself or life in general, to "diversify your portfolio", to not be "keeping all your eggs in one basket", in case of a catastrophy down here on Earth."
As long as that catastrophe isn't anything medical and infectious. As soon as you set up offworld colonies, you'll have a whole space infrastructure including regular shuttles between Earth and Mars/Venus/Titan. Effectively you'll still be in one basket, just a bigger one. Things will still spread across Sol System.
So what class
Re: (Score:2)
Forever? No, they'll enjoy a heat death or big crunch and die like everything else. Death is inevitable. Deal with it instead of trying to live forever vicariously.
The original poster is both dealing with it and living "forever" vicariously. Why one or the other when you can have your cake and eat it too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fist of all, I don't think we'll ever be sending 'meat' to mars"
But how else are McDonalds going to open there? Grow hydroponic soyburgers? I think not!
I picture vast herds of long-horn steers with cute little bubble helmets nibbling on the lichen.
We'll have to invent sanitation droids... (Score:2, Funny)
to keep things sterile...
Prototype here:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/813/kryten2.jpg [sitcomsonline.com]
Well, ain't it a bitch. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe we're meant to be on Earth after all? The conditions seem just fine, ... for now at least.
But please, send more robots first. They can do a lot more with a lot less controversy.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe we're meant to be on Earth after all?
"Meant" by who?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the way things are going the conditions might not be "just fine" one day, and we should be practicing with closed mini-biospheres and things now.
Long Duration Space Flight (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been ISS Expeditions that have lasted times comparable to at least one way to Mars - Expeditions 4, 6, 8 and 13 at least. There is no microbiological difference between orbiting the Earth and going to Mars, so I would conclude that people should be able to get to Mars just fine.
I still think that truly deep space exploration will require artificial gravity (i.e., spinning spacecraft), but this sounds like FUD to justify research funds to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no microbiological difference between orbiting the Earth and going to Mars
Yes there is, ISS gets air resupply regularly!!
Re: (Score:2)
Because air is lost. The human waste in the air is scrubbed and O2 is generated inside the ISS. This is all engineering driven, and I don't see the slightest reason why the same engineering wouldn't be used on any near-term deep space mission.
3 Progress flights per year carry something like 9 tons of supplies to the ISS (that includes propellant, by the way). I don't see why carrying along 9 tons of supplies along on a deep space mission is any different from a biological point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
I still think that truly deep space exploration will require artificial gravity (i.e., spinning spacecraft), but this sounds like FUD to justify research funds to me.
I've heard it told (though IANAA) that being sensitive to smells isn't a qualifier for spaceflight. Adults wearing diapers, zero-G toilets, no showers.
No wonder there are problems with the same challenges as basic hygiene.
What pussies we've become. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy how would those trips compare to early the first voyages to the "New World", except that they will probably be more clean, more antiseptic, and their health will be monitored much more closely.
What's worse tuill now no one has pointed this out. What pussies we've become.
Re:What pussies we've become. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those colonists were middle & lower class citizens without a whole lot of training other than how to farm, put up a hut, etc. You're talking orders of magnitude of training differential here. I have yet to see any proposal to send Joe Sixpack on a Mars missi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think anyone wants to send boatloads of astronauts in an expensive investment without guaranteeing that they'll arrive in one piece."
And let's not forget the mass slavery which made colonising the New World an economic proposition. Maybe the key to space development is re-legalising the slave trade?
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't know there were things as microbes (or that you need to have a diet with vitamin C to avoid scurvy).
They sure knew there was a risk in taking the travel (as there was a risk in every sea travel), but I am pretty sure too that, had they know about these things, they would have taken steps to avoid/minimize the risks.
Don't take ignorance for courage.
Re: (Score:2)
Few people want to flee Earth at the moment, and getting to Mars is still a rather poor monetary investment.
Re: (Score:2)
"Boy how would those trips compare to early the first voyages to the "New World""
Well, no Indians there at the other end for a start.
Also no corn, sugar cane, potatoes, tomatoes, tobacco, turkeys, buffalo, passenger pigeons, Missippi, Great Lakes, Montezuma, or oxygen.
Other than that, exactly the same!
Diseases never prevented long distance travels (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the conquistadors' diseases helped them to conquer and eliminate the native civilizations of America.
Who knows, maybe our first gift to aliens, when we first meet them, will be some of the nasty critters in the human body.
On the other hand, maybe when we reach Mars, we might run into some kind of Andromeda Strain.
"Yippee! We discovered life on Mars! Um, but its not quite how we imagined it."
Re: (Score:2)
But then there's the real fun part - soil fungus can also infect human skin. Not being adapted at all, some of them cause a fierce immune reaction that can leave scars. So, in a way, th
Re: (Score:2)
The disease helped them conquer the natives.
That's surrender monkey talk (Score:2)
Kinda irrelevant .. (Score:2)
.. given that sending humans to Mars is pretty much a 99.99% waste of everyone's resources. As well all know, can do science research on Mars at a fraction of the cost of sending a space shuttle into a week lond trip around earth, much less the cost of the human mission that has a chance of reaching Mars. And don't tell me the B.S. about colonizing Mars. Earth will remain hospitable for life for hundreds of millions of years. If there is going to be some kind of catastrophe on Earth, it's far more likely th
Re: (Score:3)
sending humans to Mars is pretty much a 99.99% waste of everyone's resources
Most of what we do is a waste of resources. Why do you go for a walk? Why do you eat at a restaurant? Why do you drive your sports car? Why do you need a hobby? Why do you have a pool in your backyard? Why, in fact, do you have a house that is larger than 100 sq. ft. per person?
In a non-wasteful world people would be confined to cocoons, immobilized (to not waste energy on movement) and fed liquid paste that contains exactly as
Nancy boy from Nancy University . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because hardly having any showers and eating toxic-smelling cheeses full of mold and live worms makes people with weak immune systems. Enjoy your daily shower and teeth flossing, sissy!
Faster Spaceships (Score:2, Insightful)
The answer is to build a faster spaceship. We need to have nuclear powered craft of some sort. The distances are simply too vast for chemical rockets. You could spend billions trying to study all the ways to keep people up in space safely for two years and probably still screw it up. The enemy is time, so solve that problem, and everything else will fall into place. That at least can get us around the solar system, and there should be enough materials in that to build some sort of an interstellar craft
Re: (Score:2)
It's called an ion drive.
Any explosion-based propulsion is not going to work so well, because you run out of mass. The trick to space travel is to accelerate the matter that you are emitting at the highest speed possible, not to just make the biggest bang. It's not like you're going to find a bunch more fuel waiting for you at the halfway point.
That's why you need a *big* spaceship. (Score:2)
For interstellar travel, you need a big spaceship with:
a) nuclear propulsion that can accelerate the spacecraft to relativistic needs.
b) a nuclear power source, so as that the ship does not remain out of power for a long time; plus, you can run an electromagnetic shield around the craft, just like Earth has one.
c) artificial gravity with rotating sections.
d) landing craft.
e) a large sick bay.
This last item comes handy when there is sickness and disease. Furthermore, a big spaceship minimizes the chances of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, if USA did not engage in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it would have the money to build that spaceship *by itself*.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are small drops in the ocean compared to such ventures.
Also, remove 100 billion $ from the trial lawyers.
And drill, baby, drill!
It could also have done as Harding did in 1920-21 recession. He cut the budget in half between 1920-22. And the national debt by 1/3. The result turned ou
Re: (Score:2)
All of the other items might be without our power, but we do not know how to do this :
a) nuclear propulsion that can accelerate the spacecraft to relativistic needs.
Let's consider two candidates - Project Orion [wikipedia.org], with an effective exhaust velocity of maybe 30 km / sec (10^-4 c) , and the Project Daedalus [wikipedia.org] design, with an effective exhaust velocity of 10,000 km / sec (0.03 c). Suppose we wanted to travel at 0.1 c - landing at the far end means the total delta v is 0.2 c (60,000 km/sec). (Note that Daedalus a
Use Nuclear rockets (Score:2, Informative)
A nuclear rocket would take 3 months to get to mars, 3 months back. Back in 1970, 400 M $ were missing to get the first one off the ground as a third stage of an Apollo rocket.
The theoretical useful weight for a nuclear rocket is 38% of the total that can go up in space, compared to 4% for a chemical rocket.
Nerva-2
Why Haven't They Tried Spinning Up...... (Score:2)
Why haven't they tried spinning up a spacecraft to simulate gravity? It seems like a logical step but NASA has been quiet about doing this. At least it would ameliorate (heh... I get points for using that word) some of the issues with long periods of time in zero gravity.
Creating arificial gravity by rotation (Score:2)
The cable could be made out of some super strong lightweight material. Extra fuel and other supplies could be used as the counterweight on the other end of the long
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a rocket scientist, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tie a rope around the crew module and the lander. Separate them by a few hundred feet and start them orbiting each other. Instant gravity.
Borrow a superconducting magnet from the LHC and place it at the center of the 2 modules. Shields up.
Now what's the problem?
Ships (Score:2)
Yeah, because in the old days sailors never got sick and/or died on the way ... we waited until the medical issues of travelling for months on ships were made 100% safe. Man, when did humans become such a bunch of pansies.
Big news... (Score:2)
Tonight, on Slashdot: Minor scientists beg for NASA research cash by overhyping their research interests. Film at 11.
Take the Express (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Paging Valentine Michael Smith. Valentine Michael Smith please report to thread 0510212 [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I be the first to say, what utter bollocks.
Human life expectancy is the longest it has ever been, despite all this "trash" we apparently stuff ourselves with.
It only took a matter of minutes to pull this data off Wikipedia, criticise my source if you will, or find a better one ... nethertheless, here is the average life expectancy during periods of human development.
Upper Paleolithic 33
Neolithic 20
Bronze Age 18
Bronze age, Sweden 40-60
Classical Greece 20-30
Classical Rome 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America
Re: (Score:2)
I just had this image of a NASA lab where a bunch of frozen astronauts are affixed to motors and spun, with one of the NASA scientists looking on and saying to another: "You know, I think we're doing it wrong."