Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons 73
sciencehabit writes: NASA hopes to send the first round-trip, manned spaceflight to Mars by the 2030s. If the mission succeeds, astronauts could spend several years potentially being bombarded with cosmic rays—high-energy particles launched across space by supernovae and other galactic explosions. Now, a study in mice suggests these particles could alter the shape of neurons, impairing astronauts' memories and other cognitive abilities. In the prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with executive function, a range of high-level cognitive tasks such as reasoning, short-term memory, and problem-solving, neurons had 30% to 40% fewer branches, called dendrites, which receive electrical input from other cells.
Some of us are safe (Score:5, Funny)
Problem: Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons.
Solution: Tin foil hats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone knew what the fuck a "whooozing sound" was, then maybe...genius.
Stick with being an AC. Don't bother getting a id.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tin foil is beneath government budget levels. We must now gold plate the interior of our space ships.
Re: (Score:2)
Russians excel at this, have you seen Putins plane?
Re: (Score:1)
Problem: Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons.
Solution: Tin foil hats.
It's all part of the government conspiracy to get us to wear tin foil hats. That's why for years I have been wearing my... oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Revised news headline: Astronauts leave earth the best, fittest and brightest of us; come back as space jocks.
Re: (Score:2)
They have some but not total radiation shielding. Such shielding is very heavy and thus very expensive to put into orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Hang on a sec.
So you are saying that they have less shielding than a tin foil hat??
If not, then you have missed my point entirely...
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothesis: Super Powers would be awesome.
Conclusion: Hell yeah!
Re: (Score:1)
[I]Problem: Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons.
Solution: Tin foil hats.[/I]
True for the short term, but given enough time subjected to a new environment over generations we will evolve defenses. Lead is a solution too, it doesn't have to be gold and it can be applied as an additive in paint on an interior layer of a craft that is out of contact of humans.
space stupid (Score:2)
reasoning, short-term memory, and problem-solving
This is why it is FAR more realistic that engineering problems need to be explained in "stupid captain talk" instead of lengthy dissertations in techno-babble.
Ren was right? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay! Say it with my (like an asthmatic chihuahua).
SPACE!!! MADNESS!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Okay! Say it with my (like an asthmatic chihuahua).
SPACE!!! MADNESS!!!
I read that in Gilbert Gottfried's voice. lol
Re: (Score:2)
Well, either that or Steve Buscemi humping a nuke.
dig a cave (Score:2)
in a small asteroid, live in that. Asteroid dirt should be good shielding material.
Too farfetched? I think so too, but people were talking about capturing an asteroid and bringing into lunar (or earth) orbit and mining it...
Re: (Score:2)
You are thinking too small... I think that is what the moon is for. Hollowed out, with equatorial particle accelerators for propulsion - it is a perfect intergalactic space ship.
Re: (Score:2)
We were supposed to have that back in 1999.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem really is that asteroid dirt or any other shielding adds a huge amount of mass, making propulsion that much harder. Trying to move an asteroid to mars with an ion drive isn't going to get there before the astronauts die of old age, and if you're going to bring huge amounts of extra rocket fuel from earth you might as well just build a huge ship with a lot of water around the central crew area for shielding.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, radiation shielding isn't particularly effective for vehicles, but it makes perfect sense for habitats. The ISS for example is basically just sitting there, we could instead maneuver a suitably large asteroid into position via the low-energy interplanetary transport network and start hollowing it out. It has a large up front cost in time and/or energy, and we'd probably want to put it in a higher orbit since its increased bulk would add air resistance(and it's unlikely to burn up on reentry if ab
Re: (Score:2)
Duh? (Score:2)
Exposure to radiation from space is probabilistic, and there have been many more living human-hours down here on Earth than up in space. Isn't it reasonable to assume that at least a handful of people have been unlucky enough to just *happen* to get bombarded with an unusually high amount of gamma radiation, having the same thing happen to them?
And then there are all these new-fangled manmade sources of gamma rays that we've been blowing up and/or using for electricity since the 40s...
Re: (Score:1)
On the other side, it seems like this should fund more research into methods to deflect the path of gamma radiation or transform its state. We know the Earth's atmosphere can do it, so why not develop our own deflection field? After all, we know where most of the gamma rays are coming from, and the rest of them would be just as random as they are here on earth. No need to "block" gamma radiation with something earth-sized; just deflect it enough that it is much less likely to hit a human, and provide a m
Re: Duh? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You joke about gamma rays but there isn't much of difference between X rays and gamma rays from a biological perspective.
I'd be interested in what happens to those that have received several head CT scans. One head CT scan is about 20 years of background radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Gamma rays aren't the most dangerous, even if they have high energy, because they don't interact easily with matter. Just as they pass through the atmosphere, they will often also pass through our bodies without causing damage.
Dangerous space radiation is in the form of high energy protons. They interact easily with matter, so they cause more biological damage, but are also effectively shielded by our thick atmosphere. They aren't shielded very well by a thin metal hull, because a collision with thin metal
We'll Know (Score:2, Informative)
We'll Know, now. See, there are two astronauts who happen to be twins. And they have sent one astronaut into outer space and the other astronaut will stay here on Earth. As time passes on board the International Space Station, we will see whether NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly develops strange new neurochemistry the likes of which humanity has never before seen, or if he stays normal like his brother Mark. Time will tell whether this theory about the brains of people in space twisting and contorting in untold s
Re:We'll Know (Score:5, Funny)
The dissection is going to be... awkward.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The magnetosphere deflects solar wind. It is not powerful enough to deflect cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation in LEO is 1/2 of interplanetary radiation because of occlusion of the galactic disc by the planet itself.
Don't stand in the rain (Score:2)
Fantastic! (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution is easy. Don't send people to Mars, send unmanned rovers. Solves a bunch of other problems too, and saves a lot of money that can be used on other cool stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Rovers are cool, but they can't compete with the excitement of a crewed mission. Apollo captivated a generation, and there's not even very much to see on the moon.
Re: (Score:1)
I think times are different now, with much more sources of entertainment competing for people's attention. A manned Mars mission would be fun for a while, but then people would lose interest and go on with their lives. Also, we didn't have many good pictures of the surface of the moon in the '60s, but we have excellent detailed images and other data from the surface of Mars. In the greater scheme of things, it doesn't really matter if the photo of a Mars rock was taken by a robot or an astronaut.
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Informative)
Apollo captivated a generation,
Not for long. TV ratings dropped fast after the first landing. Even blowing up Apollo 13's service module was not enough to save the program from early cancellation.
Re: (Score:3)
But, as always, you get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:1)
There's no direct relationship between what you pay and what you get. A dollar spent on an unmanned mission goes much further than a dollar spent on manned missions.
Citation Needed (Score:3)
[[Citation needed]]
That explains Doom 3... (Score:1)
Brain goes back to basics, semi zombies go nuts.
Also, Quake 4. Implants to offset the damage hooked up to central computer creates collective hive mind.
Suggest they put up a live feed for the inevitable madness to recoup some of the cost of the planned manned flights to Mars.
Say whaat (Score:2)
Sheilds up (Score:2)
I thought that if we were going anywhere in the Solar system (which I really hope I can see in my lifetime but I doubt it) that it would be wrapped in a lot of mass. For example I thought ice first because it's water and we would be using it. So if we carry a-lot of water that is what we would be using as shielding. Either that or rocks we can gather up *in* space (maybe a lunar space elevator [a moonstalk iirc?]).
However for our first small ship and given that cosmic radiation may be a lot more energetic
Metamaterial needed (Score:2)