NASA's New Sleeping Bags Could Prevent Eyeball 'Squashing' On the ISS (engadget.com) 41
fahrbot-bot shares a report from Engadget: Becoming an astronaut requires perfect 20/20 vision, but unfortunately, the effects of space can cause astronauts to return to Earth with degraded eyesight. Now, researchers from UT Southwestern Medical Center have developed a sleeping bag that that could prevent or reduce those problems by effectively sucking fluid out of astronauts' heads. More than half of NASA astronauts that went to the International Space Station (ISS) for more than six months have developed vision problems to varying degrees. In one case, astronaut John Philips returned from a six month stint about the ISS in 2005 with his vision reduced from 20/20 to 20/100, as the BBC reported.
Fluids tend to accumulate in the head when you sleep, but on Earth, gravity pulls them back down into the body when you get up. In the low gravity of space, though, more than a half gallon of fluid collects in the head. That in turn applies pressure to the eyeball, causing flattening that can lead to vision impairment -- a disorder called spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome, or SANS. To combat SANS, researchers collaborated with outdoor gear manufacturer REI to develop a sleeping bag that fits around the waist, enclosing the lower body. A vacuum cleaner-like suction device is then activated that draws fluid toward the feet, preventing it from accumulating in the head. Around a dozen people volunteered to test the technology, and the results were positive.
Fluids tend to accumulate in the head when you sleep, but on Earth, gravity pulls them back down into the body when you get up. In the low gravity of space, though, more than a half gallon of fluid collects in the head. That in turn applies pressure to the eyeball, causing flattening that can lead to vision impairment -- a disorder called spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome, or SANS. To combat SANS, researchers collaborated with outdoor gear manufacturer REI to develop a sleeping bag that fits around the waist, enclosing the lower body. A vacuum cleaner-like suction device is then activated that draws fluid toward the feet, preventing it from accumulating in the head. Around a dozen people volunteered to test the technology, and the results were positive.
Why do they spend 6 months there? (Score:2)
I really don't understand what they're doing up there that requires such a long stay. Studies of the human body under zero G has been done and the science experiments done on the ISS frankly seem trivial and IMO no where close to being value for the money spent on the upkeep never mind launch costs of the station (though I'm not american so its not coming out of my tax money thankfully). Is it now from a US POV simply a flag in the ground saying "We're here" to China?
Re: (Score:2)
depends how much value you place on going to mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero. Next...
Re: Why do they spend 6 months there? (Score:2)
Re: Why do they spend 6 months there? (Score:2)
We already went to Mars. With robots. There is zero scientific value in seeing how long a meat bag can stay up there. (Other than emotional reasons, and that seems like a silly reason to waste billions. Provide single payer healthcare instead with that money.)
Re: (Score:2)
Me? I'd pay a fortune to be the first human on Mars, even if it was a one-way trip.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a fortune to pay, I'm sure there are rockets you could be strapped to...
Re: (Score:2)
The reason to get to Mars, the moon, other planets, is to get humanity off this single-point-of-failure planet and into space. We're one large asteroid away from being a forgotten footnote in history.
This isn't a solution for the next year or decade, but Mars is a convenient stepping stone to getting off this rock. It might take a hundred years, but our growth on this planet will necessitate moving outward soon.
The above opinion brought to you by every science fiction writer since 1950.
--
Re: (Score:2)
If your point is to get human DNA on other planets, I'm sure we could do it quite easily with some kind of time capsule sent to the Moon/Mars. Keeping humans alive there would cost FAR FAR FAR FAAAAR more. (So much because you'd have to constantly send them resources just to breath/live. A time capsule can just hold human DNA and sit there.)
Re: Why do they spend 6 months there? (Score:1)
Re:Why do they spend 6 months there? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a stepping stone towards something else.
What that something else might be, the jury is still out.
Testing international cooperation ...)
ways to do activities in space,
how to protect against space dangers (radiation, meteorites,
finding problems when escape is an hour away and replenishment is less than a week away
reliability of mechanical, electric, electronic and computing devices over long term use in space
Future steps do not involve the ISS as an actual stop for anywhere (Moon, Mars, future orbital cities) - yet, its long overdue replacement should be larger, more comfortable, safer, and an actual stopping point for other missions - refueling depot, basic maintenance for space-only vehicles (which are still not even in advanced project), and more.
Re: (Score:2)
That was all practised to death in Skylab and Mir. It can't be used as a viable reason to spend this sort of money any longer.
Re: (Score:3)
That was all practised to death in Skylab and Mir. It can't be used as a viable reason to spend this sort of money any longer.
Sure it can. Tech has changed a LOT since then and is still changing as I type this.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really understand what you are doing here that requires such a long stay. Feel free to move on at any time.
Re: (Score:3)
We can justify it with Science experimentation, preparation for future long term space travel.
But in reality it just comes down to money. The costs to launch are high, so we try to space them out for as long as we can justify it for. so 6 months seems like a good round number.
However US interest in the ISS is primarily political, as to show the world that we are and still is in Space, and if we can keep a human up there, we the sure the heck can have a missile that will hit your country too. Also as other
"Becoming an astronaut requires perfect 20/20" (Score:2)
Does it really ?
Or are you just quoting the Engadget morons verbatim ?
Re: "Becoming an astronaut requires perfect 20/20" (Score:2)
It technically requires it, but they allow laser eye surgery as well now.
Re: (Score:1)
So William Shatner still has 20/20 vision then ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Bzzzt:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/1... [cnn.com]
Unintended side-effects? (Score:1)
Reading about how it works, I sure hope none of the astronauts suffer from enuresis.
A Rather Specific Living Environment (Score:3)
We need a rather Earth like environment, regardless of where our physical bodies travel. One that we have evolved for.
This starts with obvious things like oxygen and temperature control. This is easy, even in space, at least compared to...
Gravity. A head sucking sleeping bag is an interesting solution for the eyes (interestingly it inverts when the head will carry extra fluid - sleeping versus awake).
But the immune system is also compromised during stays in space:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021... [ucsf.edu]
Muscles and structural issues are the most obvious.
Our physiology expects gravity. Earth gravity. I would imagine long term residence on the moon would have the same issues, but with less severity or over longer periods of time (1/6th Earth's gravity is a whole lot more than near zero).
Artificial gravity would seem to be a requirement for long term periods off Earth (if there is a desire to ever return).
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully we'll be able to research if lunar gravity is good enough for long term inhabitation by fully grown persons. ...
Then, someday, we'll be able to research if lunar gravity is enough for not fully grown persons - bone growth, muscle growth,
It's a long way until then, and Mars is another order of magnitude farther.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a good read on the difficulties of being born in a low gravity environment (answer: you don't go back to Earth).
https://www.livescience.com/33... [livescience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Space gravity isn't difficult, you just need a big ship that spins.
(or a small ship joined to a weight with a cable)
The main impediment is the cost of getting lots of mass into orbit.
Re: (Score:3)
Our physiology expects gravity. Earth gravity. I would imagine long term residence on the moon would have the same issues, but with less severity or over longer periods of time (1/6th Earth's gravity is a whole lot more than near zero).
Jury is still out on that until we actually try it. It may very well be the case that simple exercise under 1/6th G is sufficient. Or that all you have to do is wear weights some of the time. At the moment we'll have to wait and see.
What I'm wondering is why they haven't tried any simulated gravity at all. It seems like we're really past due for an actual test of that in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Artificial gravity would seem to be a requirement for long term periods off Earth (if there is a desire to ever return).
Nope. What is required is genetic modification. You have pointed out several issues with humans living in space but that doesn't mean we cannot make our own bodies more suitable for space. It may take a few hundred years before we have a real handle on genetic engineering but that's far more likely to happen than the fantastical idea of artificial gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, why not just create an organism that is superior to humans and exterminate all humans to preserve resources for the new, superior, species?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. In the mean time we can use drugs to trigger and suppress various functions. There is an enzyme that actually suppresses muscle growth but if we block it then we may be able to overcome the muscle atrophy issue in space. Gene therapy would be the next logical step before any change is made part of humanity.
Making a homo-superior smarter requires a mastery of brain manipulation which is very very far from our rudimentary grasp of genetics. Should a vastly smarter homo-superior emerge from hum
Small nitpick (Score:3)
Small nitpick; 20/20 vision is not perfect, it's just the minimum visual acuity of a person before they should be prescribed some form of vision correction. Some people will have vision better than 20/20 (20/15 or even 20/10 for example), furthermore most people who do wear glasses should ideally be able to achieve better than 20/20 while wearing their glasses. I know my eyesight is very bad (short sighted/myopia, -6.25D spherical correction required for my right eye) so without any correction I'd be lucky to achieve 20/100 acuity (likely much worse), but when wearing contacts of the correct prescription I've had my visual acuity measure as good as 20/12.
Re: (Score:1)
Bigger nitpick: Astronauts do not need 20/20 vision. Ask William Shatner.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely different.
Re: (Score:1)
He was an Astronaut. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people will have vision better than 20/20 (20/15 or even 20/10 for example), furthermore most people who do wear glasses should ideally be able to achieve better than 20/20 while wearing their glasses.
I don't know about you but I've only met one mutant who had better than 20/20 vision.
For that matter, my understanding is "20/20" meant "you can see at 20 feet what a typical person can see at 20 feet". Again, I know very few of these "typical" people. And by that definition, it seems reasonable that vision slightly less than 20/20 would be acceptable.
Orbit, not space (Score:2)
In the low gravity of space
The low-gravity effect is due to being in orbit, and not due to being just 220 miles above the surface of the Earth.
Re: (Score:1)
It took me a loooong time to realise this. And, sadly, I have a relevant degree.
Arnie's was OK (Score:2)
Dangerous (Score:2)
What happens if you wake up and nothing is there at arm length to grab? You are just floating there, unable to push yourself around. What about pets? They are even more handicapped being so small.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
...more than a half gallon of fluid collects in the head...
A half gallon (that's two liters for those outside the US)? Ewww. They must look like Peanuts characters. In fact, that's so much I find it difficult to believe. If I had to guess, a normal adult human head is probably 3-4 liters.
(And I'm now going to raise some eyebrows if anyone looks at my search history.)
So, no more 'Dutch Ovens'? (Score:2)
Wow, if they only had this when I was still married...