SIG and Bone Loss

[sm_shisler]

The Space.com website had an article titled "Radiation and Bone Loss: Deep Space Mission Concerns," and I was curious as to whether or not SIG is doing anything to address this concern since it could have an impact on the users of SIG. <br /><br />Does anyone have any insight? Seems to me that it would be a good idea for a non-government funded project to work with NASA on the research so that the benefits of the research would be more readily available to the commerical industry. Any thoughts?<br /><br />Sara

 

[qso1]

I'm sure they would be looking into it internally but SIG (I'm assuming by SIG, you mean Space Island Group) is a long way from sending anyone up so its probably not a concern beyond internally discussing the study published here at SDC.<br /><br />And its just one study. Give it a year or so and a more positive study will probably emerge. In Robert Zubrins "Case for Mars" He made radiation sound like it was practically a non problem. So it depends on how severe the bone loss actually is and if it can be dealt with in any reasonable way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Speaking as someone who has many years in the medical imaging field (MRI, CT, angiography) I find the study very disturbing. The structures they describe in the study are very fragile and do not "grow back" once damaged. They are also the "rebar" that gives bone much of its strength.<br /><br />If I were NASA I'd make detailed analysis of this issue a priority as all other decisions about the safety of long term missions outside Earths magnetosphere depend on it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

The study should not be ignored to be sure. Hopefully NASA will be doing what is necessary to address the issues brought up in the study.<br /><br />I recall a study done by NASA Flight Surgeon Charles Berry around the time of Skylab. In all the hoopla about the shuttle plans and mars mission plans proposed then. His findings were that there was no medical reason to bar a two year mission to Mars.<br /><br />But that was three decades ago and our knowledge of medicine and experience with human spaceflight has advanced considerably in that time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

True. What concerns me the most is the high percentage of bone loss reported. If the study had shown a loss of a few percent it could have been a fluke, but whe it comes back at a 30%+ level it's much less likely an erroneous result. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

One thing that might come ou of it, in conjunction with private industry efforts to make access to space less expensive. One result might be building interplanetary craft with artificial "G" which could be done albiet with a higher price tag regardless of who does it. But P.E. might be able to do artificial "G" cheaper than NASA can do zero "G".<br /><br />Radiation as a cause, there are probably ways around that too. Once again however, at higher cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

As I mentioned in another thread Bigelows modules have water blankets in their outer walls, which is at least a start. There are also polyethylene plastics that are better than aluminum at absorbing cosmic rays & solar flares;<br /><br />http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/25aug_plasticspaceships.htm<br /><br />Nevertheless IMO some form of electrostatic, plasma or magnetic shielding is in order for exomagnetospheric missions.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Sounds like Bigelows on the right track. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[torino10]

Bigelow is on the right track but there is a definite need for research in centrifugally simulated gravity, I have not seen anything on the subject, but I'm not really sure if I missed something. It would be great if Bigelow could get some NASA funding to research this with a couple of Genesis modules with a tether betwean them and spun with mice on board maybe attached to the ISS?<br /><br />Just a thought, not likely to happen though.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">But that was three decades ago and our knowledge of medicine and experience with human spaceflight has advanced considerably in that time.</font><br /><br />It's a pity however that our knowledge on the validity of the linear no threshold hypothesis and effects of low level radiation exposure over the same time period has hardly advanced at all.

 

[josh_simonson]

It's worth noting that this study doesn't have an unbiased source of funding (osteoporosis medice dealer).<br /><br />Cosmic rays are expected to produce a similar level of damage to brain cells too though. <br /><br />Likely we'll learn about this stuff by examining astronauts returning from extended stays on a lunar base. Hopefully it won't be a fiasco where we get back crippled and brain damaged astronauts. That'd be a bummer. At least they could be retrieved quickly if they show signs of significant degredation.

 

[pocket_rocket]

"Hopefully it won't be a fiasco where we get back crippled and brain damaged astronauts"<br /><br />If so, they could become politicians.<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

Nyarlathotep:<br />It's a pity however that our knowledge on the validity of the linear no threshold hypothesis...<br /><br />Me:<br />And that won't advance as much as it needs to until we can start seeing actual low level radiation effects on astronauts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Well, the brain damaged ones would make good politicians anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[torino10]

IIRC Studies of flight attendants have shown an increased rate of breast cancer.

 

[docm]

Your memory is correct. Female flight attendents have a 3-5 times higher risk of breast cancer after several years on the job than new hires. This has been shown in numerous studies.<br /><br />Between this, damage to the CNS (central nervous system) and trabecular bone (the part that doesn't grow back) work on shielding must become a priority.<br /><br />Where's Nikola Tesla when we need him? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[torino10]

I am open to other alternatives, This is after all a biological problem, if there are medical solutions that can solve it without the need for development of completely new forms of technology then that should be the way to go, besides it would help to advance medical technology here on earth.

 

[docm]

There is no medical way to prevent radiation from ionizing and destroying those tissues and any kind of stem cell repair (the only way I can think of to do it) is theoretical at best, dangerous at its worst. People have died from getting embryonic stem cell therapies. <br /><br />Even if you could use stem cell therapy the bone would need gravity (or rotation gravity) to properly grow back in the right pattern.<br /><br />That doesn't even address neurological or other types of radiation damage. The only answer is a combination of physical and electronic shielding. Period.<br /><br />Anti-radiation injections are only 'real' in Star Trek TNG.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>