> It will also give astronauts the go ahead they need from NASA to travel to Mars.
Wait, what? Everything else was worked out, but NASA just went "hold on, we can't go to Mars just yet until we figure out what to do if an astronaut gets kidney stones on the way"?
Did the writer just throw this in to make the procedure seem more hip and exciting?
> Because space travel makes astronauts prone to kidney stones due, in part to bone demineralization from weightlessness, they are at increased risk. The NASA evidence base and publications note that astronauts have had more than 30 instances of kidney stones within two years of space travel. Medical assistance is a formidable challenge for those orbiting this planet or heading to other solar system destinations.
We really should be working on artificial gravity via spinning. It solves so many issues.
I know smaller craft can’t do this but we can always do a long tether with a counterweight.
(My personal pet idea is to go for super low gravity like .05G to start out to simplify things. You still get to walk around, go to the bathroom, spill liquids and clean up, cook, etc. )
This podcast covers a lot of the status on international studies for artificial gravity.
"Now we did try to fly a centrifuge on station around 2009 or 2010. And again, it was the same international community and we put together an international proposal to do it on station. And it turns out after a lot of hemming and hawing and the U.S. was going to provide the crew and the integration, the Japanese were going to fly it and the Europeans were going to pay for the device and have it built, and flight certified. It turns out that the station really isn’t designed for that much vibration. So instead of just having a person laying there, we were going to have a person with a cycle ergometer that would spin and do the ergometer. And that much vibration was bad for the station and it was decided that you would have to have a very expensive vibration isolation system that the Europeans weren’t willing to pay for to be able to do it. So, we kind of lost the possibility of doing human centrifuge work on station at this time."
So it looks like this is the current issue, and there is a large amount of work going into the physiological side of research to find out exactly what amounts and methods of artificial gravity achieve desired results.
We have years of experience with both short and long-term missions in zero or micro gravity but we know a lot less about how low gravity affects the human body. We can hope that it is beneficial but what we actually need is a way to study it.
And there's a very good chance that what we do know about zero/microgravity will still be beneficial with low gravity too. Definitely a reason to work on this even if we do ultimately wait until we have some kind of low gravity solution too.
I mean if it was only blocking a ureter for ten minutes tops, then sure? Compared to what hydronephrosis feels like, merely voiding one isn't so much of a much, really.
Chronic stone former here, and I can confirm this. That said, I did have a stone large enough to get stuck in the urethra -- not the ureter. The doctor was quite impressed. Unfortunately, I passed it in a public toilet shortly after leaving the doctor, so I wasn't able to capture and measure it.
At any rate, hydronephrosis is the real thing to fear in most cases.
> The NASA evidence base and publications note that astronauts have had more than 30 instances of kidney stones within two years of space travel.
What does this mean? Surely the average astronaut doesn't pass 30 kidney stones every two years, that's more than one a month. So it's either over a specific two year period (for every astronaut in space at the time, probably a lot?) or it's for a specific number of astronauts. Confusing sentence.
I think they mean there have been 30 reported cases of an astronaut getting a kidney stone less than 2 years after their latest space flight.
Given that astronauts are exceptionally physically fit individuals to start with, at least at the time of their space missions, this is probably quite significant evidence that space flight causes kidney stones.
NASA currently considers kidney stones an unacceptable risk for a Mars mission that requires mitigation.[1] There are also about 10 other risks requiring mitigation, though.[1]
NASA saying there is a “research gap” and that it “needs mitigation” is very different from it being an “unacceptable risk” which implies that no mission can happen until it happens. if there was a ship ready to go with a hab and propellant for the return trip sitting on mars, I can guarantee they would take the very next transfer window, kidney stone risk notwithstanding- particularly if the chinese or russians were about to do so and might get there first!
According to the method by which NASA measures risk, it is indeed an "unacceptable risk". The red 4x4 "LxC" box stands for "likelihood x consequence". So they consider it a high likelihood and a severe consequence. It's red because that puts it in the unacceptable category.
If you look at the medical risk matrix it puts the likelihood between 60% - 80% and consequence at "loss time injury or illness per OSHA criteria" On a score of 1 (least risky) to 25 (most risky), a 4x4 scores 22.
Now to your point about "guaranteeing" they would still go, they are allowed to waive these risks through a formal process. It tends to make managers squeamish though, because nobody wants to be the person who's signature is attached to a known risk that eventually causes a mishap.
What’s your definition of rubber stamping? Usually it means approving without any consideration. In both of those cases, there was a lot of deliberation. Their end conclusion may have been wrong, but it’s really quite different than “rubber stamping”
Maybe I'm not looking at the right terms but the appendix isn't on it. Is there a requirement for astronauts to have an appendectomy? Like researches in Antarctica.
Probably because the Soviets famously had only one doctor at one of their stations and he happened to get appendicitis. Had to do his own appendectomy with two assistants to hold a mirror and light, and also what I assume were copious amounts of vodka.
Returning from space in a hurry is a lot quicker than returning from Antarctica over winter. I don't know, but I've never heard of that being in their risk profile or requirements.
"NASA does not mandate astronauts to undergo an appendectomy before embarking on a mission. This decision stems from the understanding that the risks associated with surgery frequently outweigh the potential benefits."
As I understand it, it was not literally the last thing holding back. But NASA worries about everything and we have centuries of examples of remote missions failing because of medical problems that could not be solved in the field. Billions of dollars, tens of years, and a ship full of lives can't be risked on a 3mm pebble if it can possibly be prevented.
I assume they’re including sailing ships dealing with scurvy, and things like that. We haven’t been in space very long, but we’re a species of explorers.
The Franklin Expedition of 1845 comes to mind. There were even theories about new-ish technology (tinned food) accidentally poisoning the crew with lead.
The article has a bit in it "This technology is also making it possible for astronauts to travel to Mars, since astronauts are at a greater risk for developing kidney stones during space travel." And then a hyperlink to more information.
I did read; I saw the additional sentence that, yes, astronauts are at increased risk of kidney stones. I get that.
My surprise comes from the fact that a trip to Mars is already incredibly risky and any astronaut signing up likely is at peace with never coming home. I would think "painful kidney stones" or "non-ideal kidney stone treatment" is far enough down the list of potential concerns for such an astronaut that it wouldn't block NASA from giving "the go ahead they need to travel to Mars", which is what the article says.
Like, I get that NASA funds all sorts of things like this. I just can't quite believe that this is considered a showstopper. Like the famous apocryphal anecdote about needing to develop a zero-gravity pen before the moon mission; I'd have been equally surprised, even knowing that story, to hear that NASA wouldn't have launched the moon mission until they figured the pen out.
Sure, but none of that surprise warrants accusing the writer of anything like you did. It's not an article about the space program. It mentions the relevance to the space program and links to more information about it.
whether or not the astronaut is willing to take the risk, kidney stones can be so painful that someone suffering from them could potentially jeopardize the mission from incapacity or increased risk of making a mistake. Even if the astronaut were personally signed up for a suicide mission, there's a lot of incredibly expensive and difficult science and exploration to be done.
I know the Internet cloak of anonymity makes us feel comfortable saying things we wouldn't feel comfortable saying face-to-face to a colleague, but HN tries to promote civility in our comments, and yours demonstrates a lack of it.
Wait, what? Everything else was worked out, but NASA just went "hold on, we can't go to Mars just yet until we figure out what to do if an astronaut gets kidney stones on the way"?
Did the writer just throw this in to make the procedure seem more hip and exciting?