[toolbox]

Hey everyone! I work in a lab that studies the effects of interplanetary space radiation (NASA Grant), and we were actually discussing this study yesterday. While the data from this study is a wonderful first step forward, there has been a decent amount of criticism, because n is essentially 1 (with 1 control). This makes it very difficult to separate the inter-twin effects from the space effects.

If there is anything that you feel that we should be focusing on or any aspects of space radiation that haven't been properly explored, we're always looking for new ideas!

[geuis]

Nothing to comment about in terms of radiation but I'm curious about the microbiome.

Given the ISS is a closed environment, I think gut bacteria samples from other astronauts on board at the same time would be valuable to compare. Also cultures from skin and mouth.

There has been work showing we have unique personal microbiomes that follow us around. When we live with other people for long enough, there's a lot of merging between them.

[toolbox]

I think that's a great insight. At the very least, it gives us more points of comparison. I'll try to pass it along to those who might be able to do something with it! (And now I'm going to go down the rabbit hole to find out if there's been anything like that done before)

Okay the rabbit hole wasn't that deep. At the very least it appears that this [1] is ongoing.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experime...

[_archon_]

This is neat. Also, there's nothing saying that a Mars trip couldn't bring a set of gut flora pills, each diverse and different, to be taken periodically. While sampling and isolation are interesting in their effects, actually harvesting nutrition as well as possible will be mission-critical. This seems like an easy, inexpensive safeguard.

[the_duke]

If I am alone with this thought, please let me know, but:

Isn't the amount of research, meticulate care and millions upon millions spent making space travel as safe as possible becoming ridiculous?

About 150,000 people die each day. That's about 50 million a year. Test pilots used to die in crashes all the time.

I'd wager there are plenty of aspiring Astronauts that would be okay with an earlier death (due to radiation exposure, bone degredation, whatever) for having had the chance to go to Mars.

We won't really know anything beyond speculation until we actually send someone anyway.

[toolbox]

While "as safe as possible" is certainly the goal, most of the research is centered around first clearing the low bar of "safe enough to even make it there and then do some science". "Earlier death" might mean "on the way to mars", which would end up being a much bigger waste of money and effort (to say nothing of the political capital). Those are the questions we're trying to answer right now.

The other side of these things is that the research being done is not single-purpose. The lunar missions were an amazing human achievement, but their lasting legacy can be seen much more clearly on earth. Our radiation work has homeworld implications for understanding radiotherapy. Heavy ion therapy is a rapidly emerging technology that has the potential to make some previously-mortal cancers tractable, and understanding its full biological effects is critical. By exploring new worlds, we hope to be able to improve the lives on our own as well.

[the_duke]

While thinking about it:

My claim was really totally unsubstantiated, because I have no idea how much is spent on human safety. I just assumed because I read about that regularily.

It might very well be that the actual investment is miniscule when compared to the technology spending.

Your other points are definitely valid as well.

[toolbox]

Your point is still important, whether or not it is valid, because it represents a not-uncommon sentiment in the public. It's up to many researchers to try to make the results and potential of their work accessible to the public. The best mentors I've seen are always able to transfer their own excitement for their work to others.

[lawpoop]

If an astronaut dies a drawn-out, agonizing, painful death due to space cancer, without surgery or medication, it would be a PR disaster for NASA.

Look how many people die to due terrorism vs. traffic accidents. Yet people take traffic accidents to be a fact of life, white terrorism gets a lot of funding and government attention.

If an astronaut has anything other than a space journey, that will quell interest in traveling to Mars for a generation or longer. NASA would lose funding for those missions. "Travel to Mars! Die horribly when you get there, far, far away from everything you know and love!"

[mschuster91]

> If an astronaut dies a drawn-out, agonizing, painful death due to space cancer, without surgery or medication, it would be a PR disaster for NASA.

For the worst case, supply them with euthanasia drugs. Sounds inhuman, but in my opinion far more human than letting them suffer a brutal death.

[lawpoop]

I totally agree, but from a perspective, that doesn't really sound like a win.

[mschuster91]

Death on space missions is something we as a society have to find a way to deal with, anyway.

I mean, just imagine someone dies on a Mars base. Either of age, of a medical issue (heart attack), or an accident (e.g. electrical shock, or mishandling heavy stuff)... are they going to be buried on Mars? Cremated and flown home?

Will the families on Earth have a place to remember their lost ones? Should there be something like a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? Where should this be, especially given that a Mars mission will be international? In the US? One per country?

Under which circumstances is euthanasia on space missions acceptable? Not at all? For grave untreatable injuries/illnesses only? Or for "okay its treatable on Earth easily but it's too expensive to fly home", too?

What do we do if someone (by negligence or with intent) kills or gravely injures someone else on a space mission? On a space travel, someone jailed is basically dead weight eating away your resources (ST:VOY dealt with this in the Lon Suder arc in the early seasons), so would it be acceptable to ditch the person? Same for a space colony. You're not going to bring lawyers, judges and trained police personnel on an early space mission.

To make it worse: society has to think about these issues FAST. I believe it's likely SpaceX will be manned permanently on Moon or Mars in no less than 10 years.

[lawpoop]

At the point when we have a Mars base, I think people will find it acceptable. Of course, people will die on a base on Mars, from all sorts of causes.

But for now, it's exploration, and the radiation exposure is almost a guarantee of cancer. I think NASA will have to figure something out before people are willing to accept half of Mars-bound astronauts dying horribly during the mission.

[knodi123]

> I'd wager there are plenty of aspiring Astronauts that would be okay with an earlier death

The pool of talented astronauts is already surprisingly slim. And every one of them has a brilliant career ahead of them, on a safe planet, if they want it. I bet the percentage of qualified astronauts who are fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants daredevils willing to face certain death for fleeting glory, is actually kind of small. You know what they say about old pilots and bold pilots.

So I'll take your wager.

[bpodgursky]

To an extent, this research is being done because

(1) It's fairly cheap, compared to real R&D and

(2) There's nothing else to do in the meantime. Without big budget shifts, or big tech breakthroughs, there's no realistic path to a (NASA) manned Mars mission anytime soon.

So there's fiddling around the edges of the problem in the interim.

[swamp40]

Just look to the wingsuit fliers - like Graham Dickinson.

[bisby]

I feel like Musk said that transit times to Mars would be 3-4 months at the transfer velocities they were shooting for, and a slower transfer for something like Curiosity was 10 months.

How different would 12 months in orbit be from 4-10 months interplanetary? Even if this winds up being accurate for LEO (even with n=1), how relevant is it for going to Mars?

[_archon_]

In a brief search, it appears that the ISS is within Earth's magnetosphere and is largely protected from ionizing radiation e.g. [1]. The radation and possible craft shielding question is at the forefront of my mind; not only for a Mars crew, but for the plant seeds/seedlings they'd necessarily be bringing with them for an eventual food cycle. Any construction materials, fuels, etc. will have to either be shielded (heavy and bulky) or immune to changes from radiation. Also, Mars's magnetosphere is super weak compared to Earth's, so this is an ongoing concern after a successful transit and landing.

I'm thinking that best practice for a potential Martian would be to create a sperm/egg cold-storage repository before leaving Earth (in case they want kids after potentially and safely returning). Kind of a weird, radiation-related tangent.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/08/23/astroq...

[mikeytown2]

I wonder if you could re-create a magnetosphere by wrapping the entire planet in wire. Thinking this would be feasible once cheap high temperature superconductors are available that don't "quench" [1]. Sigh.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnet#Magnet_...

[namlem]

Thick plastic would provide adequate shielding from radiation, and could one day be made from local materials. Or we could just live underground. Fiber optics could be used to channel sunlight deep underground.

[toolbox]

In orbit there is still the significantly protecting effect of the Earth's magnetic field, which deflects much of the heavy ion radiation. This more massive radiatiom has different mechanisms of damage, and we're finding that it is likely more damaging in many contexts. So all-in-all, the space station ends up being a minor simulation of the much harsher interplanetary environment. I have several theories about how musk's team intend to solve this issue, mostly talking about surrounding the crew quarters with water. That being said, this problem is still largely unsolved and remains one of the biggest barriers to interplanetary human spaceflight.

[mikeytown2]

Really good podcast about this topic: RPR 11 – Radiation and Propulsion Expert: Dr. Joseph Parker[1]

[1] http://radio2.marssociety.org/2017/01/18/rpr-11-mars-radiati...

[wolf550e]

Dr. Robert Zubrin on the radiation on the way to Mars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UChuIqIKF4&t=1031

[6stringmerc]

Hi there, wishing you all the best in your pursuits and discoveries along the way!

That noted, I'd be curious to find if there are any particularly measurable "sensory" or "perception" type effects that could be part of a large inquiry. As in, does prolonged exposure change visual or auditory type input/processing/etc? It's curious to me because of seemingly how adaptive our senses can be in various environments (light versus dim), certain noises can be tuned out, and that sort of stuff. Maybe a large bombardment of space radiation or lack of gravity dulls our inner ear?

This way if the twins have measurable baselines and can take identical tests concurrently (one on Earth, one in orbit), then maybe the results could be worth reviewing...or not! Because science!