Are Humans Fit for Space? A ‘Herculean’ Study

https://www.wired.com/story/are-humans-fit-for-space-a-herculean-study-says-maybe-not/

by dsr12 • 7 years ago

81 102 7 years ago

wired.com

melling• 7 years ago

This reminds me of the discussion from 5 years ago after the Virgin Galactic crash.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540405

What I said then still stands:

“ Someone dying is devastating. Trying to conquer space a handful of people at a time is the slow and dangerous way of accomplishing this task. We should be building machines to explore the solar system. This can be done for a fraction of the cost, time, and it will allow him to allow us to iterate quickly. In 100 years, more humans will live off earth if we iterate with machines, etc now than if we move slowly trying to reduce the risk in order to keep humans safe.”

njarboe4• 7 years ago

That is what SpaceX is doing. Their manned and unmanned spacecraft systems are similar now (Falcon 9 + Dragon/Crew Dragon) and will be the same with the next system (Super Heavy + Starship). Hopefully the Starship will begin unmanned launches in 2020 as planned and get a good number of launches under its belt so that manned launches can start soon. With Starship SpaceX won't be constrained by NASA safety requirements. They will have the NASA approved Crew Dragon to launch NASA astronauts while they can use the Starship to launch anyone who decides that the Starship is safe enough for them. There is even a low probability that Starship will be launching people before Crew Dragon starts launching people, which would be a real blow for NASA, but would really point out the problems of a safety first attitude for technological progress.

ClumsyPilot6• 7 years ago

Safety first attitude? The space shuttle exploded with all crew lost, twice. Crew dragon exploded on one of its tests. Boeing test went tits up.

Rarely does a year go by without a rocket crashing or blowing up. If you want to blow up metal fine, but when it comes to people I find your attitude unhelpful.

varjag2• 7 years ago

Interesting how our understanding of risks change. I have that Soviet illustrated pop science book about space travel. Published in 1955 - two years before Sputnik - the main concern it had was the harm of microgravity. Huge unknown at the time, there were fears that humans would not able to function properly in weightlessness, so all the designs of orbital stations were with centrifugal gravity.

DNA at that point was barely discovered and genetics remained a pariah science under CPSU for years.

(The book also refers to space pilots as astronauts, not cosmonauts, and describes polar caps and channels on Mars. Wild.)

jrumbut• 7 years ago

Which one? Is it online anywhere?

varjag2• 7 years ago

Not sure. I got mine off eBay as memento, having read it back in school days many years ago. Very much identical to this lot:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1955-Traveling-in-Space-M-Vasilev-R...

There's also an expanded post-Sputnik edition of it I think.

anonymfus• 7 years ago

Is it online anywhere?

http://www.flibustahezeous3.onion/b/167460

perl4ever• 7 years ago

I have a Soviet illustrated pop-up book about space travel, with the same title, but a different author and I think published about 1980.

It appears to be "Into Space" by V. Sevastyanov, however I could only find pictures of the cover by searching for "В космос" В. Севастьянова.

Front: https://images.app.goo.gl/M51TCVL35gabKREH7

Back: https://images.app.goo.gl/bdLAZTJ9iVbm1q596

I've been wondering for years if it was a valuable collector's item, but now due to the magic of Google Lens, I guess it's not.

ChaseT• 7 years ago

And 60+ years later their guess is semi-confirmed by this study; if humans want to be in space for a long time they'll need artificial gravity to avoid most of the harms mentioned in the article. Amazing that 90% of his genes returned to normal expression. I wonder how long humans can withstand microgravity before that number drops severely, or if it's a gradual decline...

Balgair• 7 years ago

An old professor of mine was part of the medical research in these initial studies. I remember some of the big unanswered question about 0G were the digestive system and the vestibular system. Digestive because we had no idea if a stomach and the rest could deal with 0g and not just cause vomiting and whatnot. The vestibular (sense of balance) because the tiny crystals in your inner ear may detach in prolonged 0g away from the hair-like cells that transmit motion to your brain, causing permanent vertigo. Not a good thing for a pilot to have. There were many other effects that were unknown too, hence the space monkeys. Since they came back alright, it was seen as safe enough to send highly trained and very expensive test pilots up there too. Man, the Cold War, what a trip.

binichgross• 7 years ago

tldr no

philwelch2• 7 years ago

At some point we're going to have rotating, shielded space stations that are much safer than living in 0g aluminum tubes.

The real question is whether the effects of subnormal gravity are safe. If not, Mars isn't likely to work out and we'll instead have to build rotating habitats.

daenz• 7 years ago

We need to figure out how to live together before we live together in space. Imagine how easy it would be to damage or destroy a relatively flimsy man-made habitat that everyone literally depends on to survive.

ddorian43• 7 years ago

Space kamikaze

int_19h• 7 years ago

Perhaps that kind of forcing function is exactly what is needed?

edgyquant3• 7 years ago

That isn't going to happen tho. People will be living in space way before they figure out how to get along because getting along is something that humans will never do: maybe what ever species we evolve in to might but that is surely thousands of years in the future.

m4rtink7• 7 years ago

Well, that's not too different from modern urban.infrastructure & we don't see such issues too much, outside of major armed conflicts.

dsq• 7 years ago

Only by going to space will we develop the skills and economic resources to live better here on Earth.

ryanmercer3• 7 years ago

Without getting too spoilery, Ad Astra depicts some handheld weapons in space. The movie is slllowww but visually wonderful.

That isn't all that far fetched, both the USSR and the United States looked at various options for space weapons. Traditional firearms like the TP-82 carried by the soviets and various options were looked at for new weapons by both sides like the 'Soviet laser pistol' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_laser_pistol

There are some documents out there like "The Meanderings of a Weapon Oriented Mind When Applied in a Vacuum Such as the Moon" (just Google the title, click the link you trust) that show various other types that we know were looked at.

The Soviets even put an autocannon on the Salyut 3, and even fired 20 rounds on orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Defense_measures

nabla97• 7 years ago

That's really far into the future if ever.

Technology is not the problem, space economics is.

philwelch2• 7 years ago

You can get rotating artificial gravity even with bolos, though wheel-shaped stations would be better.

If you store the station's water supply between the interior and exterior walls, you get a decent amount of shielding that way, and you need the water anyway so it's no extra mass. Alternatively, you could capture a near-earth asteroid and just tunnel your space station into it, using the material inside the asteroid for construction material.

I suspect any program to capture a near-earth asteroid and construct a station with artificial gravity would be approximately the same cost as a Mars mission.

hoorayimhelping2• 7 years ago

That's really far into the future if ever.

It's really not. It's not a far leap from "aluminium tube in space" to "slightly larger radius aluminium tube in space rotating along its axis surrounded by liquid hydrogen".

We don't need some magic force field to shield against radiation - water has already proven it can do this. Liquid hydrogen is an even better shield and it's something we currently have the technology to use.

Phenomenit• 7 years ago

The problem is that the majority of earth's population is under-educated, if our economics system was conducive to education a lot of problems would be solved.

njarboe4• 7 years ago

If SpaceX can get anything near what they hope for the Starship launch costs ($2 million per launch/ 150,000 kg to orbit per launch = $13.3 per kg to orbit), the economics of space will be fundamentally changed. Building the cheapest launch capability possible has been a goal for Elon Musk's SpaceX since the beginning and you can see that principle at work in the decisions that SpaceX makes at each step in the development of its rockets. This could happen in 5-10 years, if there are not any large setbacks.

Who knows if SpaceX will price their launch capabilities at that price though.

nabla97• 7 years ago

Longest continuous period in space is just 1.2 years. Almost all human testing is yet to be done before we know if the Mars mission is possible without rotational gravity and heavy and expensive radiation shielding. Nobody knows how much gravity on Mars surface (0.38 g) or on the Moon surface (0.17g) helps with the problems and recovery.

Simulated Mission where astronauts spends 9 months on ISS, few months in moon (or short visit on earth) then another 9 months on ISS would tell something. Radiation is not as bad as in the Mars trip, so it would be safer than the eventual Mars mission.

sandworm1013• 7 years ago

Which is why we should be doing tests in earth orbit at mars gravity (using rotational/tethered structures).

nabla97• 7 years ago

Not in the budget I'm afraid.

If you start building rotational structures and getting experience, the price is similar to a spaceship with rotational gravity.

adrianN2• 7 years ago

Or we just find some volunteers, tell them about the risks and send them to Mars. I'd go, for example.

In the early days of flight people were taking huge risks, many died. But we went from no flight at all, to landing on the Moon in one lifetime. I think it's okay to take risks, as long as everybody involved knows about them and does it voluntarily.

LatteLazy2• 7 years ago

A more interesting question is how can humans be modified to be fit for space and other planets?

You and I will never leave earth, let alone the solar system. But a colony ship with a 1000 year nuclear battery, a huge computer, a massive sample of biological samples and some raw materials could go to another star system. Once there it could build something that would thrive locally (their gravity, their o2 levels, their radiation and temperatures). Something with a similar enough brain to humans...

HenryKissinger• 7 years ago

Not realistically, no. For example

40 percent of the astronauts who lived on the International Space Station suffered some sort of damage to their eyes, including optic disc edema, globe flattening, and folds in the choroid, the blood-filled layer between the retina and the white sclera.

In order to modify humans not to experience these effects in space, you would need to take those 60 percent of astronauts who did not suffer these effects, have them reproduce, check that their children inherited the right genes (i.e. the genes that insulate them from these effects), wait for those children to grow, train them as astronauts, send them into space, check for any other health effects, bring them back to Earth, make those people who do not experience adverse optical effects have children of their own who are immune to other health effects of exposure to microgravity, check that these children have all the right genes, etc. Rinse and repeat over generations. Forced evolution, basically.

Gene therapy would dramatically expedite the process, but you need to first identify which genes protect astronauts from xyz health effects of long-term exposure to microgravity, and then modify the genes of your astronaut candidates to fit the right genetic profile. You must also avoid nasty side effects. If the procedure you used to tweak the genes of your astronaut to prevent bone density loss, for example, results in the astronaut having a higher likelihood of developing a cancer, you must find another way to protect the astronaut from bone density loss without increasing his likelihood of developing a cancer.

A more "brute force" approach would be to send a large cohort of randomly selected humans into space, say 10,000, have them spend a few months in orbit, monitor them for any adverse health effects, and select those few (if any) who did not experience any side effects to be the parents of a future, genetically enhanced, astronaut corps. While everyone else is crippled to various degrees by their stay in space.

guerrilla• 7 years ago

Forced evolution, basically.

This is equivalent to what Plato advocated. His solution to the problem of people not willingly going along with it was for the state to keep it a secret. He was a bit more of a fascist than most people recall.

Andrew_nenakhov3• 7 years ago

The real "brute force" approach is to send millions to space and make colonies all over the moon, asteroid belt, mars, outer planet's moons, everywhere - and see who will survive and if they leave any descendants.

ses1984• 7 years ago

You can devise a spacecraft that provides some gravity for occupants, either via rotation or acceleration. Rotational gravity is probably way easier to solve for than adaptation to micro gravity.

zbentley• 7 years ago

In order to modify humans not to experience these effects in space, you would need to take those 60 percent of astronauts who did not suffer these effects, have them reproduce

That assumes that the 60/40 split had anything at all to do with genetics.

elfexec• 7 years ago

have them spend a few months in orbit

Wouldn't it be better to keep them there? Those that survive/thrive get to breed and rinse and repeat. Keep them in space their entire lives, generation after generation and evolution would produce a space-faring capable group of humans.

m4rtink7• 7 years ago

Thats far too long term & primitive. Direct mechanical augmentation (artificial eyes!) or possibly even genetic one would likely achoeve the same much more quickly.

Figs• 7 years ago

With sci-fi tech, sure, we could probably eventually do things like that... but why should we? If we can't get there and they can't come back, what the hell is the point? Blasting our collective spunk on far off junk just seems like narcissism.

LatteLazy2• 7 years ago

Because if you find some barren rock and you can make life there, why not do it?

adrianN2• 7 years ago

Narcissistic procreation seems like something evolution would have selected for.

mensetmanusman2• 7 years ago

Heat death. Enjoy life :)

m4rtink7• 7 years ago

Ideally you want to do both, each is suitable for a different niche and colonization profile. Also not putting all your eggs into one basket.

themagician2• 7 years ago

I doubt humans will ever live beyond earth. I can’t see how it’s possible. Lack of gravity, lack of pressure, excessive radiation. We’d literally need antigravity and magical force fields to sustain what we consider “human”.

A few generations off Earth and humans won’t even be humans anymore. We will become aliens ourselves IF we manage to survive.

hoorayimhelping2• 7 years ago

Antigravity is provided by rotating a cylinder along it's longitudinal axis. It's very simple stuff.

Not sure why we need force fields. If you meant radiation shielding, liquid hydrogren or even water is a fine radiation shield. Life evolved on earth in shallow seas before there was an ozone layer.

All of the things you mentioned are possible, but very expensive today. The reason we wouldn't live beyond earth is because people just accept that it's too hard and too magical.

themagician2• 7 years ago

Forget costs. Where are you even going to get the materials for that at scale?

Sounds good for a space ship or small space station. How do you make that work for thousands of people?

Andrew_nenakhov3• 7 years ago

Antigravity is provided by rotating a cylinder

That's not antigravity, it's just Coriolis Force.

ianthiel• 7 years ago

Humans are living beyond earth, right now, as you read this, on the ISS.

A_Parr• 7 years ago

The ISS is about the same distance from Earth that New York City is from Washington DC. It's technically still in the Earths' atmosphere.

neurobashing• 7 years ago

Beltalowda sabe what inyalowda sa-sa, que si?

In all seriousness, the bit about “a new species of spacefaring hominins” is more-or-less what The Expanse posits. Belters are not Inners, beyond culture.

mirimir2• 7 years ago

It'd be far more efficient if we could abstract human consciousness from the meat machinery.

ben_w5• 7 years ago

We don’t know how much we don’t know about consciousness works yet.

mirimir2• 7 years ago

True.

But then, that's pretty much the same for building starships.

mensetmanusman2• 7 years ago

These guys are heroes for putting their bodies throug this much testing for mankind.

jeisc• 7 years ago

Homo sapiens are not suitable for the purpose of life in space, homo sapiens may someday create an intelligent life form which will be adapted for a long life in a zero gravity vacuum and radiation filled environment.

Are Humans Fit for Space? A ‘Herculean’ Study

Related Stories