This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astronauts

NAS Report on NASA Human Health Issues To Be Issued in January

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 24, 2013
Filed under , ,

“Review of NASA’s Evidence Reports on Human Health Risks — Letter Report [Institute of Medicine]: NASA has asked the Institute of Medicine to provide independent reviews of more than 30 publicly available evidence reports on human health risks for long-duration and exploration space flight. This letter report examines evidence reports on the risk of injury from dynamic loads, the risk of therapeutic failure due to ineffective medication, and the risk of spaceflight-induced hypertension and visual alterations.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

18 responses to “NAS Report on NASA Human Health Issues To Be Issued in January”

  1. Robert Clark says:
    0
    0

    Thanks. I wonder what it will say in regards to long duration Mars or asteroid missions.

    Bob Clark

  2. Bennett In Vermont says:
    0
    0

    Living in the bubble of SciFi and other people that have followed space flight for decades, there is no surprise to this. We all know that since humans evolved in gravity, gravity is necessary for our plumbing to work optimally.

    So when do we get a centrifuge on the ISS? The ISS has taught us much about the negative physical effects of micro gravity, it would be a shame if we didn’t also use it to solve this problem.

  3. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The reality is that spaceflight is no more dangerous than many terrestrial activities. But a rehash of all the vague concerns of the past 40 years is more likely. Everyone wants more research funds.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      Just looking at the physical danger alone, astronauts are at risk during the entire venture, from the moment they get within a few hundred yards of their fully fueled rocket until they have landed and are safely clear of the hypergolics or any other remaining hazards. And in between those two events their lives are in constant danger since they are completely dependent at all times not only on the structural integrity of their vessel but also on continuous functioning of their life support systems.

      Are there activities on Earth with similar physical danger? Yes, but only if we are just looking at the immediate physical danger. It is the added isolation factor that makes BEO space travel a class in itself in terms of danger. Off the top of my head I can think of being in a nuclear submarine a few hundred meters below the surface out in the middle of the ocean, where the physical danger is similar to spaceflight, however they always have the option to surface if needed for medical or mechanical emergency. Although I am not sure what the policy is on surfacing for medical emergencies since that would reveal the sub’s position. And of course if the sub is stuck on the bottom of the ocean then timely rescue may or may not be possible depending on where they are. The difference compared to BEO space travel however is that at least with a submarine there is a chance of timely rescue.

      About the only comparable isolation example that I can think of duration wise is the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, where the personnel are isolated for up to eight months during winter. However they don’t have quite the same physical danger as space travel since oxygen supply and air pressure are never an issue. But certainly they face other physical dangers as well as medical emergencies, in an environment where timely rescue is impossible. But eight months of isolation is still much less than the isolation time of a Mars mission for example. That’s why I think research like this is needed.

      Now whether this particular exercise will result in any new information, I can’t speak to that. And I wonder why radiation exposure isn’t mentioned.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Numerous voluntary activities from the test pilots of the 1950’s to mountain climbing, cave diving, transocean sailing, and even driving on your local interstate put you a heartbeat from death and kill a substantial number of people. In an airliner you are surrounded by critical systems and combustible fuel, and you have no parachute.

        Radiation is a problem but the exposure from a single round trip to Mars adds a risk of cancer much lower than the risk of death due to mechanical or human failure. The controversey is not whether astronauts would accept the risk, but whether the rather arbitrary NASA exposure limits can be met.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          Yes as I mentioned I agree that there are activities on Earth just as physically dangerous as space travel. Again the difference is that in all of the activities that you mentioned, if the person is not killed outright then there is a pretty good chance that medical personnel can eventually reach them and then transport them to medical facilities. One of the things that makes race car crashes so survivable is not only the safety features of a modern race car, but the fact that an injured driver can be airlifted to a trauma center within minutes. Sure a cave diver is not going to get to a trauma center that fast, but as long as he can hold on for a few hours or days he will most likely be rescued (unless he is cave diving alone without telling anyone where he is going which wouldn’t be so smart)

          On a long duration space voyage however the situation is so bleak that it would probably be better to be killed outright rather than to become critically sick or injured. To the point that although it probably won’t be discussed publicly, there will probably need to be some serious discussions about euthanasia capability on long duration missions. This is why prevention of illness and injury during spaceflight is such an important subject.

          You do however bring up a very relevant subject in mentioning astronauts willingness to accept risk vs. NASA’s. Although astronauts certainly should have a say in what risks are acceptable, the final decision is not up to them, no more than a high-paid movie star can decide whether or not he does a risky stunt himself. The movie star may be willing to accept the risk, but if he is injured or killed that will affect a multi-million dollar production and the livelihoods of hundreds of workers. With space travel it is billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people whose livelihood is on the line. Astronaut bravado is really not a factor when it comes to the ultimate decisions about risk.

          And it’s really not even NASA that makes the final decision, it’s the public. The public accepts it when people are killed while mountain climbing, cave diving, transoceanic sailing, and driving on the Interstate for primarily one reason – those fatalities rarely make headlines. However if three people are killed during a botched landing of a jumbo jet in San Francisco, the public hand-wringing and finger pointing is endless, because jumbo jet crashes make the news big time. Even though it was the first fatal commercial airline accident in the U.S. in over four years. In reality an airliner could drop out of the sky every year killing all onboard and yet airline travel would still be much safer than being on the highway in your car. But the public outcry about the one or two hundred airline passengers killed would be deafening. Meanwhile the public remains stoic about the 30,000 people killed each year in auto crashes, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of permanent injuries, nearly all of those deaths and injuries caused by dangerous and inattentive driving. But that doesn’t make headlines.

          Even if we make the argument that civilization often benefits from the willingness of a few to accept risk, that doesn’t change the fact that even one fatality on a space mission can put an entire program at risk of cancellation.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Cancer years after the mission would not interfere with performance during the mission. Astronaut acceptance of radiation risk is not bravado, it’s based on experience. The other risks really are higher. Emergency care for an injured flight crewmember is unlikely to be a factor; there has never been a fatal spacecraft incident in which any of the crew survived to treat the injured. I agree the public accepts a high death rate from auto accidents and many preventable diseases. It does not make sense to spend $10M to save one astronaut when we could save lives lost on the highway less expensively and could save ten children dying of disease here on earth for as little (depending on location) as a few hundred dollars.

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            I agree that the priorities are skewed when compared to all types of accidents and diseases affecting people worldwide. Even in the U.S. the cancer deaths caused by poor diet and exercise alone is higher than most people realize. But the bar for HSF is set quite high, perhaps unfairly, but that’s not likely to change unless or until the general public sees a high value in sending people into space and thinks the tradeoff of risk vs. capability is worth it.

            Regarding weightlessness, people are coming back pretty healthy from six month stays on ISS but only because of extremely strict diet and a rugged daily exercise protocol. Whether that will hold true for longer term missions remains to be seen although I guess there is no reason not to expect it to. However again illness and injury comes into play, if an astronaut is sick or injured and cannot exercise then they will turn into a slug, and depending on the duration of inactivity they may never fully recover the lost bone and muscle and can possibly suffer damage that will last the rest of their lives.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            To my knowledge there is very little difference between the musculoskeletal atrophy resulting from injury in space and on earth. In both cases bone and muscle loss can occur but can be minimized by early mobilization and reversed by rehabilitation. No one turns into a slug.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      There’s nothing to support such a comment, especially if you want to discuss something like a Mars mission which would be on the order of 2 years long, 2 years without rescue, 2 years in very small confines, and 2 years very far from the rest of humanity.

      In general, researchers shouldn’t be penalized because others cannot see or recognize research that would be of value.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        I think the guys who survived the Shackleton expedition might have something to say about the risks of terrestrial exploration. There just isn’t evidence that the human body will turn into a giant slug after two years in weightlessness.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          That’s irrelevant. A lack of evidence on any given question or metric is not an answer and certainly is not justification for not doing research. The fact is that there remains much unknown about trip like that to Mars, and it would behoove everyone involved to get as much information as possible about what a human might have to endure and precautions will need to be taken.

          Not understanding the value of research and the scientific process is no reason for not doing the research. Being anti-science and anti-research is no reason to limit the pool of knowledge with which future mission planners, system designers, and astronauts will work.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I am a believer in research. I do research. But research should be oriented toward a useful goal, and there are thousands of diseases killing people here on earth that need research dollars. Humans have spent as long as 14 months continuously in weightlessness with no evidence of significant and irreversable effects. That said, it seems likely that robotic capabilities in space will soon exceed those of human beings.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Well, I’m willing to bet neither of us is fit to judge the goals of the research in question. Likewise, I don’t think your or I have sufficient knowledge to say, “Meh, we’ve done enough work. We know what we need to know.” I’ll assume that you’re not an expert on long duration human missions (2+ years) far from Earth, the detailed problems to be addressed, the concerns to be looked at, or the things that could go wrong. I’m willing to bet that the researcher’s opinion diverges from yours, and that the reason for that divergence is not the cynical reason you alleged, to get more research money, but rather to do what good researchers do: try to answer questions that need answers.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Individual exposures to weightlessness have been as long as 14 months. There will always be a need for improvements in countermeasures to improve human performance. There is deconditioning that is detectable. But with currently available countermeasures there is no clear evidence of irreversible changes of practical medical significance.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            That’s not answer, and it’s likely not one that satisfy anyone wanting to insure the success and safety of such a long mission.

  4. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Sure would be nice to hear about plans to build spaceships with gravity and radiation shield systems. Why spend money on excuses not to go I to space, instead create the solutions. Oh I forgot we have no money for solutions.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Have you bothered to check to see what research is going on around the world in such areas, or are you just making assumptions? Implicit in your statement is an allegation that nothing is being done. I think you can be fairly confident that work is going on and that you are not the only person that understands the issues driving that research have to be addressed.

      Google, Google Scholar, and arXiv can be used to do searches for such work, and said searches can be done from the comfort of a chair. Said searches require the absolute minimum of effort to be expended. Note you can also visit any university library to do such searching, but that requires more effort.