Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
ISS NASA Space Earth Medicine Transportation Science Technology

Spinal Fluid Changes In Space May Impair Astronauts' Vision, Study Finds (sciencealert.com) 77

Posted by BeauHD from the eye-exam dept.
A condition called visual impairment inter cranial pressure syndrome (VIIP) that has been impairing astronauts' vision on the International Space Station is believed to be caused by a build up of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in their brains. The long-duration astronauts had significantly more CSF in their brains than the short-trip astronauts. Previously, NASA suspected that the condition was caused by the lack of gravity in space. Science Alert reports: The researchers compared before and after brain scans from seven astronauts who had spent many months in the ISS, and compared them to nine astronauts who had just made short trips to and from the U.S. space shuttle, which was decommissioned in 2011. The one big difference between the two was that the long-duration astronauts had significantly more cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in their brains than the short-trip astronauts, and the researchers say this - not vascular fluid - is the cause of the vision loss. Under normal circumstances, CSF is important for cushioning the brain and spinal cord, while also distributing nutrients around the body and helping to remove waste. It can easily adjust to changes in pressure that our bodies experience when transitioning from lying down to sitting or standing, but in the constant microgravity of space, it starts to falter. "On earth, the CSF system is built to accommodate these pressure changes, but in space the system is confused by the lack of the posture-related pressure changes," says one of the team, Noam Alperin. Based on the high-resolution orbit and brain MRI scans taken of their 16 astronauts, the team found that the long-duration astronauts had far higher orbital CSF volume - CSF pooling around the optic nerves in the part of the skull that holds the eye. They also had significantly higher ventricular CSF volume, which means they had more CSF accumulating in the cavities of the brain where the fluid is produced.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spinal Fluid Changes In Space May Impair Astronauts' Vision, Study Finds More

Spinal Fluid Changes In Space May Impair Astronauts' Vision, Study Finds

Comments Filter:

  • Cool (Score:1)

    by czert ( 3156611 )
    This seems like very good news, to me. They can now finally try methods that address the source of the problem (posture-related pressure changes), just like they do for microgravity bone loss.

  • To be updated (Score:3)

    by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @07:11AM (#53383755)
    In space, no one can hear you scream, no one can see you scream.
  • Forgive the space puns of the articles that we've linked to, but we've covered this in detail a few times. It really is a limiting factor for long space missions - and NASA (who reviewed the first article) are taking this very seriously indeed.

    https://theophthalmologist.com... [theophthalmologist.com]

    https://theophthalmologist.com... [theophthalmologist.com]

    https://theophthalmologist.com... [theophthalmologist.com]

  • Amount of gravity needed? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @08:06AM (#53383963)

    So the next interesting question is how much gravity (artificial or real) would be required to mitigate this problem? At what percentage of 1g does the problem dissipate?

    I'm also wondering when we are going to get a space station or other craft into space which has a rotating cylinder that can provide artificial gravity. We need to know that the effects of long term exposure to microgravity is but we also should be working on technology to provide artificial gravity for long duration space travel since we know our bodies don't do well without gravity. This should be well within our capability to achieve and is one of the necessary technologies we would need to develop for serious manned exploration of space.

    • What if you could just edit [ted.com] out that deficiency?

      • What if you could just edit out that deficiency?

        Lot of issues there. First is the assumption that it is a "deficiency". It's not clear that such a term is appropriate. Second, there are a HUGE number of ethical issues to sort through when we are talking about altering the human genome. It's not that it's immoral per se but it has the potential to become so if we aren't careful. Third, is that it is unclear at present if such an edit to the genome is possible, practical, or even desirable. It's also unclear what second and third order effects might

        • This is why I hate Space Nutters: they talk like gene editing is even a potential solution. It isn't. There is no such thing as gene editing and there is no "gene" for this issue. You guys are anti-science and ignorant.

          • This is why I hate Space Nutters: they talk like gene editing is even a potential solution. It isn't.

            This is why you shouldn't talk out your ass about things you clearly don't understand. Seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your "space nutter" trolling is both wrong and tiresome.

            There is no such thing as gene editing

            Curious because my wife who is an MD just attended a conference were they discussed existing technology [wikipedia.org] for gene editing. It's real, available today, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

            You guys are anti-science and ignorant.

            is this some sort of George Orwell doublespeak? You spout off ignorant and demonstrably wrong statements abou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by asylumx ( 881307 )
      Or is there another solution? I'm certainly not anything close to an expert in this field, but maybe there's a biological or chemical solution rather than a physics solution. Also, outside of science fiction, I don't think we actually have a realistic way of generating artificial gravity. Right now the closest thing is to use centrifugal force by spinning a spacecraft, which we haven't actually done and apparently would require a much larger spacecraft as well as extra fuel to spin up and then adjust the

      • Or is there another solution? I'm certainly not anything close to an expert in this field, but maybe there's a biological or chemical solution rather than a physics solution.

        Nothing that we know how to do at this time. There may be medical treatments possible some day but we're still at the stage where we are figuring out the physiology of what is happening. Developing a treatment from that data is going to take quite a long time given the expense and limited number of subjects available to study.

        I don't think we actually have a realistic way of generating artificial gravity. Right now the closest thing is to use centrifugal force by spinning a spacecraft,

        That IS what we are talking about when we discuss "artificial gravity" in terms of current technology. Simulated gravity would be a better term. But there are other potential techn [wikipedia.org]

      • [...] maybe there's a biological or chemical solution rather than a physics solution.

        I dunno. I'm beginning to think that it might be worthwhile to start doing more investigation into the physics solutions.

        Currently, astronauts spend a couple of hours a day exercising. They also take various supplements to help mitigate bone loss and things like that. As we discover more things in zero-G that mess up our bodies, I'm beginning to feel like rather than trying to figure out how to solve all these "little" problems, maybe we should devote resources to solving the bigger problem (how to get g

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by waveclaw ( 43274 )

      It would also be nice to get a long term study of humans in rotating space habitats to see if it has any issues not detectable by ground models. Theory says the vestibular system shouldn't be impacted by long duration in an fast "inverse" rotating frame. It evolved on a large rotating planet after all. But Yogi Beara and any astronomer will tell you that in theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice they are different.

      We have lots of experience with space craft that shuttle things off or t

    • I'm also wondering when we are going to get a space station or other craft into space which has a rotating cylinder that can provide artificial gravity.

      Probably not for a long time. The minimum radius for spinning is such that a rotating cylinder would be a much more massive structure than we'll be ready to build for a long time in the future. Current estimation would be 80 meters in diameter to keep there from being inner ear issues. I suspect we'll see tethered units or a radial design that will spin much sooner than a full rotating cylinder.

  • Humans didn't evolve in zero gravity.
    Tough, but true.

    • So what you're saying is, we need a breeding initiative on the space station!

      • The most important part being killing off a significant part of every generation, to let only the fittest survive. Something tells me applying this to humans might make some carebears balk at this project.

        • Oh you only need to either sterilize them or send them to a planet. Probably Mars since they'll at least be partially adapted to lower gravity.
    • That's right, but we are evolving the into the race that can tamper with our own genetic code.

      It may be possible to mitigate this problem and the larger conundrum of radiation damage to humans off planet.

      We will need to evolve ways to engineer truly tougher humanoids before somethjing stops our scientific progress.

      • Right, because there is evidence that we can use gene editing to stop radiation damage and counteract the effects of the lack of gravity.
        • Hmmm... great point, but since there are already life forms [extremetech.com] that defy the most extreme conditions, there is also no evidence it cannot be accomplished.

  • Why don't they just change the astronauts' fluids before the mission instead.

  • It's "intracranial" not "inter cranial" for those who need to Google it.

    • It's "intracranial" not "inter cranial"

      I suppose that would depend on how many heads your astronauts have.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • "There do not seem to be any big drawbacks to a rotating station in principle, right?"

      Other than the fact that they are science fiction? No. There is a reason you don't see large rotating space stations or people on other planets.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • About the only issue, as I understand it, is size. From what I understand of the experiments done here on Earth, the "wheel" has to be fairly large in order to fool the brain into thinking it has gravity. Otherwise, you end up with people getting motion sickness. So the idea of, saying, putting in a spinning bed where an astronaut would sleep for eight hours and get a nice dose of gravity would probably just make them sick.

          So, as I understand it, the theory is sound. But it would be a "feat of engineeri

      • Other than the fact that they are science fiction?

        Thirty years ago smart phones as we know them today were science fiction. 100 years ago space travel was science fiction. Just because we haven't done something yet doesn't mean it cannot be done. The barriers to building a rotating space stations are primarily economic. We largely already possess the technology to build one. We just haven't gone to the trouble because it makes sense to reduce cost to orbit (by a lot) first. A rotating space station would probably have to be quite robust and heavy (du

    • Wouldn't the frame be in constant tension if it was spinning?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Yes. So what?

        The cables on the Golden Gate Bridge are under constant tension as well. No problems so far.

      • "Wouldn't the frame be in constant tension if it was spinning?"

        Yes, but the forces involved wouldn't be any larger than those involved in holding up a platform on the Earth's surface to hold window washers or bridge painters?

    • It does seem, though, that no one has any even medium term plans to pull anything of the sort off.

      I think the reasons for that are almost entirely economic in origin. Technologically it doesn't seem to be a terrible difficult problem. But currently getting the materials into space to work on the problem is tremendously expensive at present. The ISS cost about $150Billion to build. To put that in perspective the GDP of Iraq is $156Billion in 2016 dollars and Iraq has the 56th largest economy in the world. Making a rotating version of the ISS would undoubtedly be even more expensive with current tech

      • To put that in perspective the GDP of Iraq is $156Billion in 2016 dollars and Iraq has the 56th largest economy in the world. Making a rotating version of the ISS would undoubtedly be even more expensive with current technology.

        To put that perspective in perspective, the Iraq war cost $1.7 trillion -- an order of magnitude more than the ISS, so probably enough to try a lot of interesting designs.

        • To put that perspective in perspective, the Iraq war cost $1.7 trillion -- an order of magnitude more than the ISS, so probably enough to try a lot of interesting designs.

          Good luck getting Congress to pony up $1.7trillion for anything science related unless it directly involves killing foreigners, particularly those with brown skin. Especially a republican controlled congress.

    • The transit time to Mars is less than the time numerous astronauts have spent on the ISS, so it's not really a relevant problem to interplanetary travel. Especially since it's not fatal, like some of the other problems are.

      • The transit time to Mars is less than the time numerous astronauts have spent on the ISS, so it's not really a relevant problem to interplanetary travel.

        It's a VERY relevant problem. Remember that the astronauts have to be able to function once they reach Mars and so far we really aren't sure they would be up to the task. Physically they are kind of a wreck when they have to deal with gravity after that long without it even with exercising vigorously.

        Especially since it's not fatal, like some of the other problems are.

        Astronauts that come back to Earth after a 6 month journey in space are nearly unable to function unassisted for a significant period after re-entering the gravity well. I've listened to astronauts describe w

Slashdot Top Deals

Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists? -- Kelvin Throop III

Close