NASA scientists are intensifying their investigation into a vision disorder that affects 70% of astronauts on long-duration space missions, as new research reveals the condition poses mounting risks for future Mars exploration 1 2. Space- Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome (SANS) causes crew members to experience blurred reading vision, swollen optic discs, and flattened eyeballs that can persist for years after returning to Earth

  • Ptsf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s almost like we should stop destroying this perfect insanely unique and suitable planet we live on until we’ve reached a level of bioengineering that allows us to artificially adapt to the significant environmental challenges of interplanetary travel…

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I feel like a lot of people are going to take that as some sort of anti-space program sentiment, which may or may not be your point.

      But for those people, I think it’s worth considering that we don’t know what all of those environmental challenges are until we go to space and find out.

      One way or another, earth will become uninhabitable, whether by our own hand thanks to climate change nuclear war, etc. or by some natural phenomenon that we are powerless to prevent- gamma ray burst, asteroid impact, the sun dying out

      In all likelihood, we won’t have to worry about those natural disasters for hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of years, but we don’t actually know that for sure. For all we know, we could just be days away from destruction by some ridiculously powerful space-bullshit that we don’t even know to be worried about yet.

      We aren’t always going about space exploration in the right ways or for the right reasons, but every tiny step we take does inch us closer to a better understanding of what’s all out there in the universe, what dangers it presents to us, and how we can avoid or counteract those dangers.

      If we hadn’t been sending astronauts into space for the better part of the last century, we wouldn’t know that it might cause these kinds of vision problems, and so we wouldn’t know to work on a solution for that to have it ready for when it’s really needed. Sure would suck to have all of our other ducks in a row to set up a sustaining Mars colony or whatever, only to find out when we got there that 70% of our colonists can’t see right due to the trip there. Now we know, and we can work on a solution, whether it’s bioengineering, or special contact lenses, or whatever may be needed.

      • Ptsf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Definitely not anti space sentiment, to clarify. I love the space program and funding it fully with public dollars has historically led to massive returns in scientific discoveries we use daily. Memory foam, aerogels, paints, etc. I’m just venting about the people (who I’ve talked to irl) who hype space so hard they disregard how important it is to look back towards our mother planet before we set our dreams on the next. IE “So what if Earth has problems, we’ll just colonize Mars” without acknowledging the inherent and extreme environmental challenges that exist in that unknown that don’t exist on our shockingly perfect little flying rock we have here.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          I’m just venting about the people (who I’ve talked to irl) who hype space so hard they disregard how important it is to look back towards our mother planet before we set our dreams on the next.

          I hear what you’re saying. To be fair though, it’s never too soon to start thinking about the future. And from my perspective, the future in space looks very bright indeed.

          • Ptsf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Never said it’s not, just saying we have to ensure we live here first because we don’t even know if interplanetary habitation is viable. We assume so, but in cases like this, we learn that there are variables uncounted that must be.

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              I think the problem I have is with the word “first”. If we do that, we’ll all be miserable for the next several millennia, and then we all die. If we try to make earth work “first”, it will never actually be time to focus on space.

              We can do them both at the same time, and that time is now.

              Also, what about interplanetary habitation wouldn’t be possible? You just create an earth-like environment in space. Yes, that’s a monumental task, but it’s also a fairly straightforward task. If you can build a park or seed a forest on earth, you can do the same on a large spinning habitat in space.

              In some ways doing it at a smaller scale is really more complicated. When you can simply recreate a whole biome, that certainly makes things simple. But when you need to pack everything necessary for sustainable living into a small station, that’s quite complicated and results in a delicate ecosystem with a lot of failure conditions which could end in total ecological collapse. But again, to master those techniques, we need to start doing it.

              • Ptsf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                The earth is immeasurably more inhabitable and solvable than any achieveable planetary body we know of. If you can’t solve the problems here first. You more than likely cannot solve the problems at all.

                • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  What if the core problem is elbow room. What if what we really need is room to expand, “space” if you will.

                  And why does it have to be about solving problems? Why can’t it be expanding into space for the opportunity it represents. Space habitats aren’t for escaping earth, that’s not the point. It’s more like expanding earth, until earth is more of an idea than a single place.

                  • Ptsf@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 days ago

                    Because, as this article points out, space is not currently habitable. Additionally, I think you’re missing my point. If we can’t solve a social problem like that here, I don’t see how we’ll solve it by making it much harder with things like medical complications from flat eyes. That’s before we get into the bevy of other problems in medical, manufacturing, and energy that are inherent to space. Space is not like our earth, practically divinely engineered for us by sheer luck. To quote many a NASA staff member “Space is hard”. But I’m not saying that means don’t do it, I’m saying it means have your priorities straight because we all need to save this insanely perfect planet first. It’s going to be way easier to do that than to “move on and start fresh”. You’re not in the old pioneering days where you could just take a ship to another land and start anew. This beyond wasn’t mean for us as we are, but as we will be.