Space Leaves Astronauts Partially Blind

Partial blindness is not the only long term and chronic effect on space travellers' health, but at least NASA found an identifiable cause for it. So finding a fix might be possible before we go all out on asteroid mining, the moon and Mars. Meanwhile, thank god for robots.

Space Leaves Astronauts Partially Blind, and We May Finally Know Why

* Almost 2/3 of astronauts have reported problems with their sight after spending months on the International Space Station.

* New research shows that astronauts who had were in flight for long durations had abnormally high cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the brain, which could be the culprit.

...NASA suspected that the impairment, visual impairment intercranial pressure syndrome (VIIP), was caused by changes in the fluids in the eye and spinal cord in response to microgravity.

The researchers observed severe structural changes to the eyes of the astronauts, some of which were permanent. The eye problems include inflamed optic nerves and flattening at the back of the eyeballs. Astronauts who had were in flight for long durations also had abnormally high cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the brain.

a reply to: soficrow

To me, that is a serious health issue and who knows what lingering damage has been done. Isn't it time some research money be allocated for studying and/or implementing ways of creating artificial gravity?

In developing his General Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein noted that you could not tell the difference between gravity and constant acceleration. He used this example to state his theory that gravity or gravitation was not a force but an action related to inertia on moving objects.

www.school-for-champions.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight
To me, that is a serious health issue and who knows what lingering damage has been done. Isn't it time some research money be allocated for studying and/or implementing ways of creating artificial gravity?

In developing his General Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein noted that you could not tell the difference between gravity and constant acceleration. He used this example to state his theory that gravity or gravitation was not a force but an action related to inertia on moving objects.

www.school-for-champions.com...

Oh, that research has been going on for a good long while. Unfortunately, I suspect a lot more money has been spent on hiding the chronic health problems and physical damage caused by space travel. Even though studies have been done since the 1960's.

All I can say is: Do NOT go to space without a healthcare package that guarantees full-and-total lifelong coverage, that stays in place whether you quit, get fired or retire. And whether or not you are able to keep up with the premiums.

a reply to: tikbalang

Early NASA plans for a manned mission to Mars used a spacecraft that spread apart via a boom and spun to induce an artificial gravity for the trip there and back.
It was never built. It was a plan that they had toyed with.

In Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel Comics, etc SciFi - they almost always have artificial gravity on space vessels. This will probably become a mainstream component on any serious space traveler's craft. Recreating Earth's normal conditions is likely an essential requirement for good health.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I am in total agreement with you there.

The only way to make extended periods in space viable, to make colonisation and extrasolar missions possible in the future, is to solve today the problem of ensuring that habitats, living spaced designed for astronauts, are made as close to Earth normal as science, rather than budget, will allow.

Wouldn't this beg the question?

Right out of the gate wouldn't you be able to test people who insist they have been abducted off world for this?

The researchers observed severe structural changes to the eyes of the astronauts, some of which were permanent. The eye problems include inflamed optic nerves and flattening at the back of the eyeballs. Astronauts who had were in flight for long durations also had abnormally high cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the brain.

It's not likely you could hide it or fake it?
Just a thought.

a reply to: Caver78

Absolutely yes - unless they enployed artificial gravity techniques on their craft.

a reply to: Caver78

First problem with this test, would be the probability that if alien craft HAVE abducted people, taking that as a given for the purposes of a hypothetical you understand, then the chances are that they would have HAD to have had a stabilised gravity system of some sort, probably inertial dampening of some kind as well, just to be able to get here in a reasonable period of time.

Then you have to consider that the effect on the eye that we are talking about, does not come about after just a couple of days or weeks, but takes months to actually set in. This means that abduction would have to have been for an extensive period, much longer than the couple of days that most reports mention as the upper limit for duration.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I was musing that it would seem a simple eye test could rule in or out space exposure. Just off the top of my head I recall that some "alleged abductees' have had many repeat abductions which "may" be enough to register some optical changes in their biology if nothing else.

I thought the implications were interesting.
It's entirely possible that some abductees' are legit and can now point to something tangible that couldn't be caused by anything else.

Honestly assuming artificial gravity of craft seems to be putting the horse before the cart. Altho I can see how it could be used to justify why someone has no optical anomalies. Really all it would take are a couple of everyday Joe's who exhibit these changes who had no access to a space program to fire up Ufology all over again, no?


Without derailing too much, who wouldn't want Cory Goode to submit to an eye test?
This could have been invaluable for Travis Walton back in the day.

As NASA studies the effects of space on it's astronauts why shouldn't the cross implications be of benefit to Ufology? In a unbiased "look-see" we don't know what we'll find because it hasn't been done.
Back in the day we simply didn't have the data we do now for a better physical comparison.

Just off the top of my head I think this is a fascinating avenue to explore!