NASA's NextSTEP space program

President Obama recently discussed the new space program ("NextSTEP") being rolled out by NASA. It will be located in deep space near Earth's moon. Here is the NASA announcement:

http://www.nasa.gov/nextstep

Here is the announcement from President Obama:

http://www.space.com/34351-obama-says-america-will-send-people-to-mars.html

The missing link in these announcements is not technical data, it is biological and medical data. Most readers of the thrilling science fiction novel The Martian do not have the in-depth knowledge of biology or medicine to understand that the most fictional element in The Martian is not the space vehicle, nor even the novel's description of the surface of Mars, but the effect of cosmic and solar radiation on the human body.

The second most fictional element in The Martian is the biological and medical effect of human exposure to a nuclear reactor housed in their spacecraft. Women astronauts, for instance, are more vulnerable to ionizing radiation than men.

In an interview included in a recent paperback edition of The Martian, the author, Andy Weir, admits he has no training or academic background in biology. He is a computer programmer for a US national laboratory.

Anyone doing a Google search on the terms "retina" "astronaut" will see a list of several studies that find chronic retina problems in Earth's astronauts caused by their exposure in outer space to space radiation. One of those studies was done by NASA itself. Thus, it may be possible for human astronauts to travel to Mars, but it is unknown whether they would be able to see well enough at that point to pilot a return space journey to Earth. That is just one example of the complex biological and medical problems that may invoke the specter of a "suicide mission" in our future long-term space travel.

Should medical issues be discussed in a science forum? When Marilyn Vos Savant, who has the highest known IQ, was asked if medicine is a science or an art, she replied, "Medicine is a science practiced by artists."

NASA has been conducting research on astronauts health and medical issues for pretty much the whole time it's been around. I did some work within a research group on a NASA grant involving measuring high energy neutron production in space structures like the ISS or structures on Mars for the purpose of understanding astronaut exposure. Check out the National Space Biomedical Research Institute for more info: http://nsbri.org/

What about decoding the tardigrade or water bear DNA and gene editing that in the human body to add radiation screening protection for the mission to Mars? And, the edits are undone once no longer needed.

vy0123 and everyone, when you have a chance, please give us a recent reference or citation on that work. Be aware also that many scientific journals still do not require authors to disclose potential financial conflicts of interest.

The hail of cosmic radiation in space will bull its way through human tissue (like the retina), regardless of any gene editing.

Therefore, there are a variety of radiation health threats facing humans in deep space.

From a few months ago, here is a NASA announcement of their prospective study on astronaut retina problems. There are four medical doctors on that research team, probably all eye specialists:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/204.html

>1 MaureenRoy: I am a little confused after reading:

"The missing link in these announcements is not technical data, it is biological and medical data. Most readers of the thrilling science fiction novel The Martian do not have the in-depth knowledge of biology or medicine to understand that the most fictional element in The Martian is not the space vehicle, nor even the novel's description of the surface of Mars, but the effect of cosmic and solar radiation on the human body."

As drneutron states, people who design and implement space missions are well aware of the hazards of space - and still looking for information to further enhance their knowledge. What the lay person's concept is of the hazards of space exploration is relevant in a political context, when deciding how to use research money- I guess. Recently with private enterprise taking a position in space exploration the lay person's opinion is of less value unless there is some sort of corporate IPO fund raising effort.

For a historical view of radiation exposure I ran across this statement{another space.com article} while musing about the Van Allen Belts.

"The astronauts on the ISS do not regularly spend time inside the belts, but from time to time solar storms expand the belts to the orbit of the space station. In the 1960s, several Apollo crews went through the Van Allen belts on their way to and from the moon. Their time in that radiation-intensive region, however, was very short, in part because the trajectory was designed to pass through the thinnest known parts. With more study, astronauts can be better protected for long-term stays in Earth orbit."
http://www.space.com/33948-van-allen-radiation-belts.html

#4 It was a thought possibility based on newspaper report in the last few weeks or months on the water bear's powers and the observation a small gadget was taken to the ISS for reading DNA if memory serves. I don't believe non-institutionalized readers can have access to papers for researchers to cite. One off purchases for a few pages are as high as over $100 so they are not really accessible.

>6 vy0123: I posted a link to a Japanese experiment description in a different topic which had some same properties. I assumed the original abstracts/reaseach were published in Japanese.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/206095#5741652

At a 2014 BIS gathering in answer to an audience question on radiation it was said the journey to Mars increases the chance of developing cancer later in life to 2%.

When I create a thread on this Space! LT group, I assume that not everyone reading our comments is a professional scientist ... even fewer have backgrounds in biology or medicine. That's why I have presented the above biology/medicine issues in an inclusive way.

Certainly, many of the challenges that humans face in designing and maintaining a long-term or permanent deep space presence are on the hard science side ... physics, technology, etc. But the media (which has little grasp of biology or medicine) tends to focus mainly on hard science questions, when in reality many more types of science questions remain.

Going forward in this thread, please bring up *all* science issues related to this upcoming deep space mission. I just don't want to see biological or medical questions left completely out of the picture. Thanks!

As vyo123 has discussed, our current and future free access to relevant journal articles that describe research results on the human presence in deep space is hanging by a thread, very limited. I recently renewed my University of California (UC) alumni membership only to find that our physical campus libraries have now been rebuilt into literally "walled gardens of information" that provide almost zero journal access to any UC alumni, regardless of whether that alumni visit to the UC libraries is physical or online. Here is one free (open access) journal article I found online:

http://researchnews.plos.org/2016/11/02/spacy-bacteria-behavior/

PLOS = Public Library Of Science

What biomed research remains to be done to measure acceptable deep space health risks to make real the 70s concept for stationing populated areas in near deep space? I hope my question isn't off topic for the intent of this thread.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder

The radiation challenge is formidable if humans are to spend long stretches off-Earth. Kim Stanley Robinson's vision in 2312 is interesting: engineer asteroids as habitats by hollowing them and fitting them with propulsion and living comforts. Their thick walls protect from harmful radiation and debris.

Most plans for Mars habitation include digging into the ground to build structures or capping craters - same reason. Lots of radiation protection.

NASA's also studying using water tanks for radiation protection in long duration space vehicles. Also great radiation protection.

Vy0123 and everyone, as I said above in my last comment, go ahead and contribute any comments or questions on this thread related to this planned NASA deep space mission ... I actually don't want this discussion limited to biology/medicine issues ... all science thoughts are welcome.

Since this is LibraryThing, let me mention a potentially interesting book: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Bob Park. It includes a chapter arguing that manned space exploration is essentially foolish (and often promoted in a fraudulent manner), with other chapters on astrology, homeopathy, perpetual motion, alien abductions, cold fusion and more.

#14 are you able to paraphrase those arguments? I don't expect there's anything new on voodoo anything like magic tricks for kids.

I don't have the book with me (and last read it in '07), but my recollection of the argument is that nearly all space-based tasks can be accomplished more quickly, more safely and less expensively through unmanned missions. The few exceptions (Hubble repairs come to my mind) don't come anywhere near to justifying the cost of manned space programs. Instead manned space programs are sold by appealing to scifi fancy and national pride. As one example I remember Park describing TV ads that promoted Space Station Freedom by claiming that the USSR was beating the US by building Space Station Mir.

...After writing that I ran a quick search to see if I could grab some quotes. It turns out the first twenty pages of the manned space exploration chapter are available through Google Books. (There is also a Wikipedia article.)

The TV ad I remembered was made by McDonnell-Douglas, and Park describes how the space station's various incarnations became "a make-work welfare program for the aerospace industry... pumping money into almost every congressional district in the nation."

"The space station cannot be justified on scientific grounds. The science planned for the space station, however, is quite unlike the voodoo science we've discussed previously; it is not so much wrong as simply unimportant. The story of the space station is a story of misplaced dreams and unwarranted hype."

"By 1984, however, these functions {of the space station} were all being performed by unmanned satellites. What's more, the robots were doing them far better and far more cheaply than would ever have been possible with humans... The dream of a space station, however, was too deeply embedded in the national imagination to go away. Each new administration {Reagan, Bush, Clinton} would concoct a new justification."

"The enormous benefits from the space program, both in satellite technology and basic science, were unrelated to human space flight." Even worse, the enormous costs of the manned space program were "strangling the U.S. space effort."

As an example of those costs, "The total Pathfinder mission to Mars, 150 million miles from Earth, cost only about a fourth as much as a single launch of the space shuttle into low-Earth orbit."

There is also a little information in the chapter on the medical/physiological problems discussed in earlier posts in this thread.

#16 That's long off topic enough to cut from this thread on human presence space science challenges and paste in its own.

Agreed, and anything on this thread that should be repasted elsewhere is fine with me.

I just finished reading the 2015 TED book How we'll live on Mars. All recent books on Mars (nonfiction as well as fiction) seem to have their pluses and minuses, not just on the directly biological/health issues but on other science issues as well. For example, this book presents many important science findings on Mars colonization, however it never mentions dust storms. On the other hand, dust storms are discussed extensively in the recent novel The Martian ... go figure. The most troubling omission in the above TED book is the lack of discussion about the total lack of magnetic fields or Van Allen-type belts around Mars. There's one sentence on page 29 that admits "there's no magnetosphere or Van Allen belt to block radiation ...". It is necessary, however, on such a critical science topic, to spell out for any unaware readers the devastating implication of those factors. See, for example, the science fiction movie from a few years ago, The Core, for a graphic walk-through of what such a lack means for an otherwise earthlike planet. It is a necessarily disturbing and haunting film, yet apparently little known.

Other interesting discussions from the above TED book include: 1) Page 47 --- Mars colonists will have to follow a vegetarian diet for a long time. 2) PP 54-56 -- terraforming will take anywhere from centuries to 1,000 years. 3. Many book sections discuss the implications of human exposure to ionizing radiation, both in space and while living on Mars. 4. For instance, the long-term need of Mars colonists to live under at least a ten foot thick roof of locally manufactured Mars "bricks" is explored. 5. See the discussion with a biologist starting on page 48 that questions the viability of any surface greenhouses for growing crops on the Martian surface. Growing alternatives are discussed. 6. As appears customary in TED talks, there is periodic mention of the Martian use of nuclear reactors with no explanation of alternatives, let alone what will be done with the inevitable nuclear waste ... that uncritical acceptance of the "need" for nuclear anything is so 20th century. My question there would be, "Based on what?"

Note: The author has an online TED talk that covers some of the issues explored in this 77 page book. The author is a journalist.

January 31, 2017 -- Here are more biological consequences of long-term human habitation in deep space:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/31/going-into-space-affect...

This is one type of DNA change that researchers are finding in astronauts who are in space for a long time.

>19 MaureenRoy: So that type of DNA change is not harmful. That's good.

A recent article in Scientific American was about the effect of cosmic radiation (as opposed to purely solar generated radiation) on rat brains. It showed irreversible loss of cognitive function and on a cellular level loss of dendritic processes even at low levels of exposure. This type of radiation is more difficult to shield against than solar generated radiation and may prove an insurmountable barrier to long duration space flight.

This is an interesting and informative {to me } quote from a new NASA article on radiation in space.

"The second source of energetic particles is harder to shield. These particles come from galactic cosmic rays, often known as GCRs. They’re particles accelerated to near the speed of light that shoot into our solar system from other stars in the Milky Way or even other galaxies. Like solar particles, galactic cosmic rays are mostly protons. However, some of them are heavier elements, ranging from helium up to the heaviest elements. These more energetic particles can knock apart atoms in the material they strike, such as in the astronaut, the metal walls of a spacecraft, habitat, or vehicle, causing sub-atomic particles to shower into the structure. This secondary radiation, as it is known, can reach a dangerous level.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-fro...

Even neater concept is the proposed magnetic shield for the entire planet of Mars, posting that in the Mars topic.

Now retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly was on today's CBS This Morning TV news show (hosted by reporter Charlie Rose) to introduce his book Endurance: a year in space, a lifetime of discovery, which is being published on Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2017. In his interview, they discuss some of the many physical findings emerging from Kelly's recent year in space, such as the elongation of his telomeres (when perhaps the reverse was expected, due to the challenging physical environment in space). It's no surprise that Mr. Kelly recommends exploration of Mars. The hardcover book is published in the USA by Knopf Doubleday. Here is an exclusive excerpt courtesy of National Geographic magazine:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/space-odyssey-astronaut-scott...

The publisher website:

http://knopfdoubleday.com/2017/10/03/media-center-endurance-by-scott-kelly/

October 25, 2017: I'm about halfway thru the book Endurance: a year in space, a lifetime of discovery ... it's better than I thought it would be, and it's a fast read. No spoilers here, it's too good for that. He is very frank about the health risks he faces in space, but says repeatedly in the book that it will be important for humans to go to Mars for the science and other discoveries.

Author website: http://www.scottkelly.com/

>24 MaureenRoy: I thought it was interesting that Scott’s telomeres grew longer in space but reverted back to norm while on the ground as mentioned in >23 MaureenRoy:

Look forward to reading the book.

From the US Congressional publication The Hill, new science evidence that former astronaut Mark Kelly's DNA has changed, apparently permanently. It's no longer identical to the DNA of his identical twin brother Scott, as it was before his long voyage in space:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/378459-nasa-study-astronauts-dna-no...

>26 MaureenRoy: OTOH, maybe not so much: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/15/17124312/nasa-twins-study-dna-scott-kelly-int...

From the academic theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, PhD, his 2018 book The Future of Humanity: terraforming Mars, interstellar travel, immortality, and our destiny beyond Earth updates many recent science findings on space exploration, especially the realities of life on Mars: https://books.google.com/books?id=hoYkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT87&lpg=PT87&dq=%...

This new book provides many updates on Earth's various public and private plans for missions to the Moon, and to different parts of our solar system and beyond. See also the discussion on eye problems of a number of returned astronauts, such as retina problems, optic nerve inflammation, and radiation damage to the eye.

Edit October 22, 2018: Here is a summary article that examines research progress on human eye and brain disorders that began during space flight. That research is ongoing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26828842

>28 MaureenRoy: These medical issues are going to be formidable. Our adaptation to Earth has not prepared us for life outside, and it will be entirely on us to retrofit ourselves and devise safe environments and strategies...

Stellarexplorer, agreed. But my takeaway from Dr. Kaku's latest book is optimism that NASA research into human health protection in deep space will be intensified. It could also be that an adequate space shielding material for humans will be developed (possibly a very thick and enclosed wall of water constructed in deep space not far from our moon). As the author says above (in a different chapter), initially the severity of these eye injuries was not well understood. Time will tell.

If the health threats to human space travelers are resolved, Dr. Kaku also mentions that there may be lava tubes within Olympus Mons suitable for Earth people to colonize. Cool.

He also draws upon his experience as a college professor to explain for non-scientists many leading developments in science. Great stuff.

>28 MaureenRoy: Read the e-edition of that book and enjoyed it as a fun read, Kaku is an interesting writer.

>30 MaureenRoy: I didn’t mean to sound pessimistic. Just to acknowledge the challenges that we will have to master. I proceed as if it is a given that there is a human future off-Earth.

I was taken by surprise many years ago when at 15 it became apparent to me that things were moving at a slower pace than I’d expected. No moon base. No Mars colonies. No plausible interstellar travel. No Space Academy I’d be applying to. I had to completely rethink my plans. :)