Vision Problems For Some Returning Astronauts

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vision Problems For Some Returning Astronauts

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 23, 2011 @02:55AM from the blame-the-ether dept.

astroengine writes "A newly discovered affliction has some doctors wondering if astronauts traveling to Mars could have problems with their eyesight by the time they got there. About one-third of U.S. crew members aboard the ISS return with impaired vision, one case of which was permanent. The reason for the late discovery of this mysterious affliction is the reluctance of astronauts on active service to come forward — the risk of being grounded after complaining of blurry vision is considered too great."

203 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Vision problems by said213 · 2011-09-23 02:58 · Score: 3, Funny

at NASA in General, No?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/23/031217/neil-armstrong-to-nasa-youre-embarrassing [slashdot.org]

--
help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
1. Re:Vision problems by said213 · 2011-09-23 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  oh come on, -1? it's a little bit close to funny.
  it made me chuckle, at least... which may explain why i'm not a moderator.
  
  --
  help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
2. Re:Vision problems by said213 · 2011-09-23 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  Offtopic? WTF mods?
  It's satire within hours of it's relevance... while not necessarily briiliant or gut-busting humor; give a troll some respect for being topical, non-abrasive, quick and decidedly and satirically on topic. most are vulgar and petulantly ignorant.
  they're mod points. you've got nothing to prove... use them on something less thoughtful and more irreverent.
  
  --
  help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
One of many? by SoTerrified · 2011-09-23 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wonder how many other minor 'afflictions' from space travel are ignored/explained away that we haven't heard about for the exact same fear of being grounded...
1. Re:One of many? by mdm-adph · 2011-09-23 03:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Like Space Herpes, for one.
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
2. Re:One of many? by Stradenko · 2011-09-23 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, space herpes are problematic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-me2inj1nNw
3. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Which makes an excellent case for a masturbation-only policy while in space. Then they'll just have to worry about going... hey, wait a second!
4. Re:One of many? by instagib · 2011-09-23 03:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ... which would be unprofessional and probably reckless behaviour on behalf of the astronauts. One can understand the emotional reasons, but the huge efforts made for their safety would be in vain if they are not honest about their capabilities.
5. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe we could ask the Russians for their medical data on their extended duration trips. They put people on Mir for far more than 6 months at a time specifically to gather data on the medical effects of a trip-to-Mars length stay in space.
  Or we could sit and pout about not having run the same experiments.
6. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah but this isn't just a career, this is going into space. It's more exclusive than being a movie star. Once you're in that club, I bet you'd do anything to stay in.
7. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Some of these aren't exactly minor...
  Owns Syndrome
  The Serious
  GBS
  Space AIDS
  Space Kuru
8. Re:One of many? by kanto · 2011-09-23 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe we could ask the Russians for their medical data on their extended duration trips. They put people on Mir for far more than 6 months at a time specifically to gather data on the medical effects of a trip-to-Mars length stay in space.
  Or we could sit and pout about not having run the same experiments.
  Maybe the Russian cosmonauts are predominantly gay, hence no vision issues.
9. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Oh no. I've got Owns Syndrome. There's no cure. I'm totally awesome.
10. Re:One of many? by Shadowmist · 2011-09-23 03:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  ... which would be unprofessional and probably reckless behaviour on behalf of the astronauts. One can understand the emotional reasons, but the huge efforts made for their safety would be in vain if they are not honest about their capabilities.
  That's all nice and logical from the armchair, but take it from their point of view. They're Air Force pilots, who've spent years, maybe decades to get tht shot. Knowing that Deke Slayton was grounded for the better part of a decade for a minor heart flutter, you're simply not going to take the chance if you think it's not stopping you from doing your job. That's part of "Right Stuff" mentality. The very kind of personality you recruit for the job tends to foster that kind of disposition. It would be very interesting to get the Russian data on this... they're the endurance bears when it comes to long stays in space.
11. Re:One of many? by YrWrstNtmr · 2011-09-23 03:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ... which would be unprofessional and probably reckless behaviour on behalf of the astronauts. One can understand the emotional reasons, but the huge efforts made for their safety would be in vain if they are not honest about their capabilities.
  
  This is pretty normal among regular air force and navy aircrew.
  If you have to go see the flight surgeon, there are two outcomes. 1. remain on flight status, or 2. get removed from flight status. There is no 'up'. Hell...one of the Shuttle crew had Parkinsons when he went up for the last time.
12. Re:One of many? by 93,000 · 2011-09-23 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well played, sir.
  
  --
  Sweet informative mod.
13. Re:One of many? by DerekLyons · 2011-09-23 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  It would be very interesting to get the Russian data on this... they're the endurance bears when it comes to long stays in space.
  That presumes the Russians have the data... In general, they weren't really diligent about biomedical protocols and record keeping.
14. Re:One of many? by Alomex · 2011-09-23 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently, from recent conversations with former astronauts, the vibrations at take off during Mercury/Gemini/Apollo were extremely uncomfortable, yet all astronauts reported only "minor rattling" least they be considered wimps.
15. Re:One of many? by Surt · 2011-09-23 05:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly why you should just devise tests for every required physical capacity, and administer them before every launch. The cost would be trivial compared to the cost of the launch.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
16. Re:One of many? by Flyerman · 2011-09-23 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  At least you get free sunglasses, constantly.
17. Re:One of many? by rjune · 2011-09-23 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As a retired Navigator (17 years in KC-135's (A/E/R) I think that this post is absolutely correct on the mindset of flyers. They don't want be sick and go DNIF (Duties, Not Including Flying-- Grounded) and the schedulers sure don't want you off flying status. If you were grounded, once you got back on flying status, there was punishment in terms extra duty and crappy flights. I flew when I probably shouldn't have, but most everybody did. Maybe more information will come out now the shuttle program is over.
18. Re:One of many? by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · 2011-09-23 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  ...if you think it's not stopping you from doing your job.
  That is the exact problem right there (emphasis mine). The whole point of vision tests and minimum requirements is to decide if an astronaut's vision would keep them from doing their job. And the people developing and administering the tests are far better qualified to determine that than an emotionally-biased astronaut who is directly and strongly affected by the outcome.
19. Re:One of many? by clickety6 · 2011-09-23 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how many other minor 'afflictions' from space travel are ignored/explained away that we haven't heard about for the exact same fear of being grounded...
  Have you never seen the Quatermass Experiment? ;)
  
  --
  ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
20. Re:One of many? by tak+amalak · 2011-09-23 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  Like drive across country in a diaper?
  
  --
  Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
21. Re:One of many? by Shadowmist · 2011-09-23 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  ... which would be unprofessional and probably reckless behaviour on behalf of the astronauts. One can understand the emotional reasons, but the huge efforts made for their safety would be in vain if they are not honest about their capabilities.
  It would be nice to be able to separate out the emotional component. However the last time I checked, American Astronauts are not imported from the Planet Vulcan.
22. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  You may not get voted up, but that was splendid :)
23. Re:One of many? by dissy · 2011-09-23 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how many other minor 'afflictions' from space travel are ignored/explained away that we haven't heard about for the exact same fear of being grounded...
  I can't say much about the afflictions not reported, but as to the other minor afflictions that happen from space travel which NASA knows about (about as in their existence, not necessarily a full understanding) are:
  - Changes to sense of balance, as the brain gets used to the new signals from the inner ear resulting from microgravity,
  - Lower blood pressure as the heart has to work less, which can become a problem back on earth at 1G,
  - Bone and muscle deterioration, as well as muscle scaffolding rearrangement, again due to microgravity,
  - Heavy Z particles that have negative effects on the eyes, brain, spinal cord, and suspected the entire nervous system, when such particles penetrate the spacecraft and thus the astronaut
  Now we get to add further vision problems to the list.
  I have no doubt various "Psychology" issues are involved too, but I don't really know the details.
  NASA does have a lot of research in that department, but as far as psychology goes, we don't even fully understand that in normal conditions yet, let alone in space.
24. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, just like they did in Gattaca! What could possibly go wrong?
25. Re:One of many? by Surt · 2011-09-23 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  There is no chance that story would happen. In reality, he'd get caught, and not go on the mission. Risk of billions in losses for taxpayers averted.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
26. Re:One of many? by stephanruby · 2011-09-23 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's such a competitive field, I'll bet that the ones that tend to be honest about their true capabilities never even make it into the program in the first place.
27. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  As a 21 year Navy fighter pilot this is not surprising at all. There is no upside to going and seeing the flight surgeon. The best you can hope for is status quo (you get to keep on flying). The flight surgeon never says "you're fine, in fact I'm going to recommend you fly more!" Unless you believe it is something that can be fixed, or life threatening, there is not much advantage over just asking the scheduler to give you a day. Plus, fighter pilots tend to be the kind of people who don't go see the doctor anyway. I can count the times I saw the flight surgeon other than for a flight physical - 1 - some nasty strep infection, 2 - a pain in my neck/shoulder so bad I could barely move (after ignoring it for several days), 3 - negative reaction to smallpox vaccination. And that's it.
28. Re:One of many? by Shadowmist · 2011-09-23 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  It would be very interesting to get the Russian data on this... they're the endurance bears when it comes to long stays in space.
  That presumes the Russians have the data... In general, they weren't really diligent about biomedical protocols and record keeping.
  And your expertise of the subject comes from where????
29. Re:One of many? by Shadowmist · 2011-09-23 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  It would be very interesting to get the Russian data on this... they're the endurance bears when it comes to long stays in space.
  That presumes the Russians have the data... In general, they weren't really diligent about biomedical protocols and record keeping.
  And your expertise of the subject comes from where????
  Of course the Russian flyboys would probably have been just as reticent as our own. Because no matter what your nationality, creed, or whatever, they're still flyers.
30. Re:One of many? by DerekLyons · 2011-09-24 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Decades of studying manned space programs.
31. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't fancy colliding with a floating blob of you-know-what...
32. Re:One of many? by Coren22 · 2011-09-26 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  The whole thing of Gattaca was to prevent the guy from doing what he isn't capable of. The end was a little vague, but I think he actually died during launch, proving them right.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
33. Re:One of many? by Surt · 2011-09-26 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  That makes for a very different interpretation if true. I took the message as everything went fine, obsessive control freaks should let go and let people achieve whatever they can.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
blurry vision by slashpot · 2011-09-23 02:58 · Score: -1

I have blurry vision - in my pants!
From a glasses user: by del_diablo · 2011-09-23 02:59 · Score: 0

What, can't handle minorly blurred vision?
I had poor eyesight from year 0 to year 12, and it was only discovered by a accident.
Stop sodding and GET TO WORK.
1. Re:From a glasses user: by TheSpoom · 2011-09-23 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure they require astronauts to have 20/20 vision, hence the risk of grounding.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
2. Re:From a glasses user: by Joce640k · 2011-09-23 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  I would have thought 'vision' would be part of the standard medical exam when they return from space.
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:From a glasses user: by foobsr · 2011-09-23 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I would have thought 'vision' would be part of the standard medical exam when they return from space.
  Probably a 'blinded' ex-astronaut in the command chain had the 'insight' to enlighten the doctors to not include it anymore.
  CC.
  
  --
  TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
4. Re:From a glasses user: by 0123456 · 2011-09-23 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure they require astronauts to have 20/20 vision, hence the risk of grounding.
  Yes, but glasses are acceptable. The uncorrected vision requirements for non-pilot astronauts are pretty low; or were when I looked at the astronaut application process years ago.
  If you look at pictures of John Young (first shuttle commander) in space you'll notice he was wearing glasses.
Lasik by sxltrex · 2011-09-23 03:00 · Score: 0

So send along a Lasik specialist. Do I have to think of everything?
1. Re:Lasik by Nick+Fel · 2011-09-23 03:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm not letting a Lasik specialist with blurry vision point a laser at my eyes.
2. Re:Lasik by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Would you really trust a blurry Lasik specialist then?
3. Re:Lasik by hipp5 · 2011-09-23 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Laser eye surgery is ruined by high g-force.
4. Re:Lasik by Richard_at_work · 2011-09-23 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Why would it be? Its a permanent ablation of the cornea, changing its shape - if it were ruined by high g-force, then so would normal sight.
5. Re:Lasik by hedwards · 2011-09-23 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Same reason why the older style of cutting it open with a scalpel would result in somebody being barred from being a fighter pilot. The technology they use is somewhat different, it's akin to grinding a lens down to change its shape.
  The issue is that they cut a flap in the cornea to do the work, and there's a small chance that excessive g-forces could cause it to flap open.
6. Re:Lasik by rickett81 · 2011-09-23 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Pilots of commercial aircraft and military aircraft are not allowed to have lasik surgery. They instead have to have PRK surgery. Both are usually performed by the same specialist though.
7. Re:Lasik by demonlapin · 2011-09-23 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  You can have PRK, which doesn't involve a flap. LASIK, I believe, has better outcomes, but anyone without perfect vision already can't fly fighters - so if it's the only chance you have...
8. Re:Lasik by Richard_at_work · 2011-09-23 04:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, the flap completely reseals permanently afterward - after a week or so there is no chance of the flap reoccuring because it no longer exists.
  Yes, I have had laser eye surgery. Yes, I investigated such things thoroughly beforehand.
  And yes, I fly aircraft.
9. Re:Lasik by Jeng · 2011-09-23 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  The theory is that this is caused by an enlargement of the optic nerve. Lasik would not help in this case.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
10. Re:Lasik by Richard_at_work · 2011-09-23 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  PRK has been allowed by the USAF for all aviation positions since 2001, and Lasik was allowed in 2004 for particular aviation positions, and in 2007 this restriction was removed completely.
  Fighter pilots can certainly fly after having laser eye surgery.
  Also, you can fly in the USAF without having perfect vision - according to the following Air Force Times, 41% of active USAF pilots require corrective lenses to carry out their duties.
  http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-force-eye-surgery-widens-pilot-pool-022811w/
11. Re:Lasik by gknoy · 2011-09-23 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Lasik won't help much with the swollen optic nerve.
12. Re:Lasik by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  The flap is always there, but there's scar tissue that grows back and holds it together. There's always a potential for the scar tissue to break. It happened to my friend about a year after she had LASIK. She had to go back and have her flap moved back to the correct spot. I've had LASIK too. And yes, I play aircraft simulator games.
13. Re:Lasik by Richard_at_work · 2011-09-23 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, the flap completely reseals after a week or two, unless the surgery was botched and an air bubble was left under the flap - if the surgery is done correctly, there is no flap after several days, its completely connected with the underlying tissue. That is why you stop needing eye lubrication (fake tears) after several weeks - because the nerve endings reattach and grow back. They can't do that if the flap doesn't completely seal...
  Multiple laser eye surgeons assured me that there was absolutely no chance of flap movement after 14 days when I researched it.
  So your friend either had very badly botched surgery, or was simply invented as an argument point.
  And yes, I really do fly aircraft - why do you feel you have to denigrate that, when pilots are something we are specifically talking about? I have both single engine and twin engine ratings, tail draggers and am about to finalise a DC-3 purchase. Its not exactly difficult to get a pilots license, so why the "I play aircraft simulator games" remark?
14. Re:Lasik by TheBig1 · 2011-09-23 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  LASIK doesn't have better outcomes; the success rates for PRK and LASIK are just about identical. However LASIK does give you faster healing. I opted to do PRK for my surgery. Even though it was about a month before I was back to perfect vision, IMHO it was worth it. Since there was no flap cut into my cornea, my eyes are now 100% healed (in fact the eye doctor couldn't even tell that I had had surgery). With LASIK, even though the flap does heal well, it is never 100% as strong as before. As another poster pointed out, though, even the USAF has authorized LASIK surgeries for their pilots for some years, so the differences are minimal. Cheers
15. Re:Lasik by glueball · 2011-09-23 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Multiple laser eye surgeons assured me that there was absolutely no chance of flap movement after 14 days when I researched it.
  
  Funny--my father in law, an ophthalmologist, makes a great living fixing the corneas of people who believed exactly what you were told.
  This is why I still wear glasses. My vision is too important to leave to surgeons who say "absolutely no chance" just as I wouldn't like to fly with people who say "absolutely no chance"
16. Re:Lasik by Richard_at_work · 2011-09-23 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Its not really funny, the flap has nothing to do with cornea damage - and I never said there were no risks to the procedure itself (there are), I just heavily dispute the claim that it was possible for the flap to move after a significant amount of time (its not).
  And after research, I would agree with their "absolutely no chance" of a correctly repositioned flap being moveable again after a week, let alone a year - and as my treatment involved five appointments during the first month (one later the same day, one the next day, one at the end of the first week, one at the end of the second week and one at the end of the first month), where the flap was checked for movement and bubbling, an incorrectly positioned flap would have been spotted well before a year had passed.
  But "absolutely no chance" of any issues in the procedure? Well, I never said that, and it was never said to me - I was told the percentage rates of secondary treatment being required, and I was given a huge pamphlet with all of the possible side effects and problems (with likelihood of occurance), and both the consultant and the surgeon asked me prior to the procedure if I was aware that this was not a risk free procedure.
  So you took that statement to mean a lot more than was intended or inferred.
  As someone married to a doctor (check my posting history, I've made several medical orientated posts in the past month or two - mostly criticising the British NHS and its treatment of doctors), and who has as a result many medical friends including ophthalmologists, I have to say that with regard to laser eye surgery there seems to be a split in consensus of opinion on its safety, with that split generally being based on the age of the doctor concerned, with younger doctors being exposed to more recent papers and studies which have a different conclusion than older papers.
  Go and ask your father-in-law what the actual issue rate is with the various laser eye surgeries - its actually extremely low, with most issues being corrective with a second treatment (regardless of what initial treatment you go for, one of the first things most laser eye surgeons do today is map your entire eye pattern, so if you go for the more expensive treatment they can treat each portion of the eye individually - this allows them leeway with treatments, so if something does happen they have a detailed 'before" picture with which to work toward corrections).
17. Re:Lasik by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  No need to worry, in space they're Phasik specialists with phasors.
18. Re:Lasik by LateArthurDent · 2011-09-23 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  And after research, I would agree with their "absolutely no chance" of a correctly repositioned flap being moveable again after a week, let alone a year
  Not enough research, apparently. Try up to seven years.
  Yeah, we can debate the meaning of "correctly repositioned" and due diligence. Also no permanent damage to any of the patients in the study, which is good. Overall low chance of it happening makes for a relatively safe procedure. Still, it's most certainly not "absolutely no chance."
19. Re:Lasik by demonlapin · 2011-09-24 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info.
Weightlessness is a Bitch by Denogh · 2011-09-23 03:01 · Score: 2

This is just another of the long list of maladies associated with weightlessness. Artificial gravity is going to be a must for long term stays in space.
1. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you assume it's related to gravity? It could be related to radiation (no atmosphere to deflect damaging rays), for example. Of course, I agree with you about things like bone density.
2. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Richard_at_work · 2011-09-23 03:08 · Score: 2
  
  Could this possibly be a mix of weightlessness affecting the eye muscles, and a lack of distance focal points to focus the eye on during the stay in space? Because you basically have "anything inside the ISS", "any external part of the ISS you can see", "the earth" and "infinity", while on earth you have a huge range between local and distance - perhaps its a lack of exercising the distance focusing?
3. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by mdm-adph · 2011-09-23 03:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  We'll get right on that -- do you want it before or after we make the FTL drive?
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
4. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-09-23 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  The suspicion, at present, is that it is caused by abnormal fluid pressures in and on the eyes, due to weightlessness.
  
  Given that we have a reasonable amount of data about radiation exposure at 1G, we can probably make at least an educated guess about what radiation does to eyes(and it definitely does have some known effects)...
5. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  What?
  We can already do artificial gravity. It gives the desired effects pretty accurately if you follow the equations right so that the body isn't in a mix of different forces between head and toes.
6. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. What NASA needs to be working on right now (instead of really big rocket) is how the humans are going to survive the 6 mo trip to Mars and then the 6 mo back, without being dead. Either go faster or artificial gravity.
7. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  I'd guess the eyeballs just inflate a bit in zero g like the rest of the face does, and takes a while to shrink back to normal. Maybe the guy who was permanently affected hasn't got such elastic eyeballs.
8. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Denogh · 2011-09-23 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA:
  
  THE GIST
  
  * NASA finds a link between long-duration spaceflight and a loss of vision acuity.
  * The condition is not always reversible once an astronaut returns to Earth.
  * Doctors believe a redistribution of cerebral spinal fluid in weightlessness is involved.
9. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by mdm-adph · 2011-09-23 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking more "flip a switch" artificial gravity than "big spinny ring" artificial gravity.
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
10. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by hedwards · 2011-09-23 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's definitely a possibility and one that's a known risk for people that spend too much time on their computer.
11. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by tchuladdiass · 2011-09-23 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with going faster is that you would then overshoot Mars. The way you go to another planet (efficiently) is through a transfer orbit. Basically, Mars is in it's position because it is going faster than Earth (but it takes longer to go around the Sun since it is further out). To go from Earth to Mars, you accelerate to the same velocity as Mars, giving you a sort of spiral orbit until you reach the same orbit as the target planet. And if you time it right, your orbit and the target planet's orbit will intersect. Therefore you don't need to expend a lot of fuel to slow down once you get there, as it would be like coasting to a stop. Now if you try to go faster, you will overshoot the target planet's orbit, or you will need to carry enough fuel for a braking maneuver (or use atmospheric breaking for example).
12. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-23 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you're referring to centrifugal forces, then you might like to do the sums sometime to work out how big it would need to be for the difference between perceived gravity at your feet and in your head to be close enough not to be noticed (say, within 0.05g). Then add in the amount of extra space you'd need because you can now only use one side of every room, rather than the entire volume. Then multiply the result by the cost of getting things into space. And then realise why the ISS does not do this.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
13. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-23 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Then add in the amount of extra space you'd need because you can now only use one side of every room, rather than the entire volume. Then multiply the result by the cost of getting things into space. ... and inflatable space stations start to sound like a better idea.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
14. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2011-09-23 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's better then that: you only need to accelerate to a suitably near orbit such that you get captured by Mars' gravity well and then just coast in.
15. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Denogh · 2011-09-23 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Reports of magnetically levitated frogs and mice aside, the more realistic near-term solution is centrifuges.
16. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Denogh · 2011-09-23 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct. We quickly go from a relatively small space station to a 2km diameter torus when we start talking about using centrifugal forces to produce artificial gravity that doesn't cause its own problems. Something like Discovery One doesn't really seem large enough to mitigate the dizziness and other ill effects of differing speeds at head and feet.
17. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by PIBM · 2011-09-23 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Until it`s punctured by something .. now that would be funny from down here! :)
18. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by foobsr · 2011-09-23 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  lack of exercising the distance
  My guess is that the breakdown of the relations within the feedback loop 'body movement' - 'perceivable outcome' may contribute a great deal to the condition.
  CC.
  
  --
  TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
19. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  Before. Just make the cabin spin.
  Captcha: Reticles
20. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2011-09-23 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Then multiply the result by the cost of getting things into space. And then realise why the ISS does not do this.
  Because our space programs are being run by tight-wads?
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
21. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by ArsonSmith · 2011-09-23 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Artificial gravity doesn't have to be Star Trek style. Even just a large spinning ring could provide 1G for the duration of the flight. There is no such low tech solution for FTL. Of course the spinning ring produces it's own problems.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
22. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by _0xd0ad · 2011-09-23 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  you might like to do the sums sometime to work out how big it would need to be for the difference between perceived gravity at your feet and in your head to be close enough not to be noticed (say, within 0.05g)
  Why the heck would it need to be that precise? Especially since your feet would be the most affected. If you were topheavy it would be worse, but this will actually make your center of gravity appear lower. Your feet aren't that heavy... you could increase their weight by a lot more than 5% and not have a significant effect. Hell, you could increase their weight by a lot and it wouldn't feel any different than, say, wearing a pair of steel-toed boots.
  And even if it's noticeable - so what? Circulatory problems still wouldn't occur for such low differences. Your body is fairly resistant to higher-than-normal Gs (much more so than it is to negative Gs).
23. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by nomel · 2011-09-23 05:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Who said a torus? Just use a tether attached to some weight (maybe a few old satellites that need decommissioning). This way, you could have "gravity rooms" of any size, including the whole ISS. I suppose you might want to put the communication satellite at the center of gravity.
  Maybe the possibility of a severed tethers sending the craft into the atmosphere is why they don't do this approach.
24. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by simcop2387 · 2011-09-23 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I question why you need to have such a large one in the first place. Instead make it, say, 150m and then just use it ONLY for sleep and resting. I've got to imagine the impact of being able to lie down for 1/3 of the time would make a big difference on things. since it would give your body some time to readjust things like the spinal fluid. It might not be enough for the bones though, which could pose other problems still.
25. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by TheLink · 2011-09-23 05:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Doesn't have to be that big. Put space station at one end of many tethers (for redundancy), put weight at the other end (weight could be power plant or other stuff), spin them.
  
  They might as well work on this first before doing stupid stuff like going to Mars. Once you have space stations which people can actually live on, going to Mars or elsewhere is much easier.
  
  And in fact, once they have such space stations, going to Mars might actually be not as interesting as starting space colonies among the asteroid belt (for easier access to raw materials).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
26. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  How is spinning a large cylinder even comparable to building an FTL drive, exactly?
27. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  But that would mean dealing with facts and numbers, and realising that space is not for humans. The local Space Nutter church will BURN you.
28. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by arth1 · 2011-09-23 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  * Doctors believe a redistribution of cerebral spinal fluid in weightlessness is involved.
  That is a distinct possibility. The visual cortex in the occipital lobe is in the very bottom back of your skull, and sensitive to internal pressures. Scintillating Scotoma, for example, is related to this.
  And no, no method of vision correction can help with that.
29. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be retarded, FTL is, as far as we know it, impossible whereas "artificial gravity" will just mean a centrifuge of some kind, we know how to build those; already included in the NASA Nautilus-X conceptual design which according to the study could be built within a decade and at "reasonable" cost.
30. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by wagnerrp · 2011-09-23 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because the non-inflatable spacecraft would fare so much better when they get punctured... When both options have the same fatal consequences, you can't use it as an argument for either.
31. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by wagnerrp · 2011-09-23 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Some back of the napkin calculations, in order for a 2m tall person to have only 1% difference from head to toe, you're looking at a 200m radius and rotating at 2rpm. Worst case, that's about 45m/s if the tether broke. That's not sufficient to deorbit immediately unless you're already extremely low, and could easily be replaced by an emergency booster.
  As for the counterweight, the best option would likely be to keep your last stage rather than discarding it into the atmosphere. You're going to have it with you anyway, may as well use it rather than try to capture old satellites that happen to be in the same exact orbital inclination and past their lifetime.
32. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's not the weightlessness, it's the acceleration. This is the same problem suffered by Airforce Pilots. It's known and documented. It's also the reason they test so thoroughly.
  Do you still have doubts human pilots will be replaced by computers in the future?
33. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by DerekLyons · 2011-09-23 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Could this possibly be a mix of weightlessness affecting the eye muscles, and a lack of distance focal points to focus the eye on during the stay in space?
  As to the latter, the answer is almost certainly no. Otherwise, it would have shown up on submarine crewmen (especially SSBN crew) decades ago. Anyhow, if you read TFA, the problem is believed to be related to swelling in/adjacent to the optic nerve, not muscular.
34. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Artificial gravity is an easy concept. You just have to create a cylindrical spaceship/spacestation that rotates at a fixed speed to generate a fixed gravity on the outer wall (centrifugal force).
35. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by sjames · 2011-09-23 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike FTL, we don't need any new physics for an artificial gravity. The traveling carnival has had that tech for a long time.
  We're not talking "gravity plates" here, just spinning.
36. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-24 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Go crawl back under your Fark.com bridge, Quantum Apostrophe.
37. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by PIBM · 2011-09-25 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I believe it would be easier to patch a crack in the hull of the current space station than in a randomly distorted inflatable station. But that might be just me..
38. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by wagnerrp · 2011-09-25 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Easy to fix. Add a series of capillaries to the exterior hull. Fill the capillaries with alternating resin and activator. When the hull is breached, air pressure forces the fluid out of the capillaries. They mix in the gap, harden, and seal the hull.
  OK, maybe it's not easy but its certainly doable. With years of research, and hundreds of millions in budget, there's no reason why it couldn't be accomplished. We have been using self-sealing fuel tanks for military aircraft since before WWII.
so let me get this straight... by Moheeheeko · 2011-09-23 03:03 · Score: -1, Troll

Im basically being told that A THIRD of the people working on BILLIONS of dollars worth of equipment on the ISS, dont tell anyone their vision isnt so hot. laser eye surgery works, how can instantly improve vision not be on the top of thier to do list.
1. Re:so let me get this straight... by sandytaru · 2011-09-23 03:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The visual degradation is from the optic nerve, not from a mishaped cornea, if you had RTFA.
  
  --
  Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
2. Re:so let me get this straight... by Nick+Fel · 2011-09-23 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Given the effects were generally temporary, lasering them might be a slightly extreme reaction.
3. Re:so let me get this straight... by nedlohs · 2011-09-23 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Because lasers are magic and can fix all vision problems.
4. Re:so let me get this straight... by blueturffan · 2011-09-23 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  how can instantly improve vision not be on the top of their to do list?
  Another Brian Regan fan! For those that don't get this, please head on over to http://brianregan.com/ and buy one of each of his CDs and DVDs. You'll thank me later.
5. Re:so let me get this straight... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-09-23 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  What is curious to me is that the flight doctors weren't catching it.
  
  Given what we know about people's response to incentives(ie. in situations valuing the "right stuff", people generally under-report problems they can get away with concealing), and given the importance of having top-performing people in mission critical situations, I would have expected the post and pre flight medical checks to be good enough to detect vision issues. Visual acuity testing isn't the cutting edge of rocket surgery...
6. Re:so let me get this straight... by Kjella · 2011-09-23 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  The visual degradation is from the optic nerve, not from a mishaped cornea, if you had RTFA.
  Not sure if he'd understand even if he read TFA. Most people these days assume that since we have laser, all eye conditions can be resolved. No, they can't. If the problem is the optic nerve (glaucoma for example), the clarity of the lens (cataracts) or a host of other problems, laser won't help you. It helps only for the case of a misshapen eye lens - and in case of e.g. keratoconus not even then.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
7. Re:so let me get this straight... by Chris+Burke · 2011-09-23 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  Because lasers are magic and can fix all problems!
  To paraphrase an old adage:
  If lasers aren't solving your problem, then you just aren't using enough of them.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
8. Re:so let me get this straight... by hedwards · 2011-09-23 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's not rocket science, but by the same token, with enough motivation it can be hard to detect. Even for those that aren't trying to cheat, but have good memory, the charts they typically use are somewhat less than helpful.
9. Re:so let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  >What is curious to me is that the flight doctors weren't catching it
  Because the astronauts were caching their symptoms
10. Re:so let me get this straight... by ArsonSmith · 2011-09-23 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, i started wearing glasses about 6 years ago and have been getting worse eyes and needing new prescriptions about ever 2 years. The first couple of times I went to get tested I was trying hard to read as much as I could from the chart feeling that I was being tested on how well I could read the letters. later I realized it would go faster if I just told the doctor I could probably guess some of the letters right, but they were still too blurry to be considered correct vision. My pride in getting the right answer was getting in the way of my need to get a correct prescription. It is hell to get old.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
11. Re:so let me get this straight... by 0123456 · 2011-09-23 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  laser eye surgery works, how can instantly improve vision not be on the top of thier to do list.
  And is generally frowned upon by NASA due to concerns about pressure change effects. Or was as of a few years ago.
12. Re:so let me get this straight... by geekmux · 2011-09-23 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  The visual degradation is from the optic nerve, not from a mishaped cornea, if you had RTFA.
  Not sure if he'd understand even if he read TFA. Most people these days assume that since we have laser, all eye conditions can be resolved. No, they can't. If the problem is the optic nerve (glaucoma for example), the clarity of the lens (cataracts) or a host of other problems, laser won't help you. It helps only for the case of a misshapen eye lens - and in case of e.g. keratoconus not even then.
  Speaking of reading TFA...
  
  "..."Nobody knows why pseudotumor cerebri occurs..."
  
  "With a relatively small pool of subjects to study -- around 30 U.S. astronauts have lived on the International Space Station -- doctors have not been able to determine if age, gender or previous spaceflight experience affect vision loss."
  
  Hrm, sounds like a whole lot of statistics-by-dartboard if you ask me, since we seem to be clueless on Earth as to root cause, much less space. I guess it's good that we're identifying this now as a possible issue before sending people into deep space, but let's at least try and slow down the roll on the hype train. We have enough hype in the media already these days.
13. Re:so let me get this straight... by _0xd0ad · 2011-09-23 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  As long as you're not straining your eyes to try to figure out exactly what each letter is, you're fine. Get enough of them wrong and it's obvious that you can't see them well at that size and distance. Just say what it looks like and keep going until the doctor tells you to stop. It's unlikely that you'll guess enough letters correctly to trick the doctor into thinking you can see them if you really can't.
14. Re:so let me get this straight... by Kjella · 2011-09-23 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Hrm, sounds like a whole lot of statistics-by-dartboard if you ask me, since we seem to be clueless on Earth as to root cause, much less space.
  Well, I assume astronauts have been through all sorts of health tests before they go on missions so they almost certainly had good vision going up there. And they report these symptoms as happening after being on the space station. That 10 out of 30 healthy young people develop eye conditions at the same time is a bit too much of a coincidence. There's just not statistical grounds to say why that 1/3rd was affected and the other 2/3rd not, but the main conclusion seems valid enough.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
15. Re:so let me get this straight... by Coren22 · 2011-09-26 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Or you are the target, try moving around.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Cosmic rays by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:03 · Score: 0

According to this NIH study an enormous amount of LEO astronauts have reported seeing phosphenes while in orbit. These are speculated to derive from background radiation in space. Clearly, more study is needed--and more shielding.
1. Re:Cosmic rays by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-23 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  According to this NIH study an enormous amount of LEO astronauts have reported seeing phosphenes while in orbit. These are speculated to derive from background radiation in space. Clearly, more study is needed--and more shielding.
  According to this they are caused (at least on Earth in the general population) by mechanical trauma to a damaged nerve. If they're already seeing damaged optic nerves in returning astronauts, it makes sense that the phosphenes in orbit are symptomatic.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Cosmic rays by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  The Bevalac had a vertical beampipe extending above the shielding dedicated to "Eye Flash" experiments. Various Ions at different energies at very low intensities, a few particles per pulse, were directed to a viewing port; Astronauts reported that the interactions between the Ions and the retina and optic nerve perfectly replicated what they experienced while in orbit.
  For giggles, quite a few physicists also looked in the port, confirming for themselves the predictions of interactions by Cornelius Tobias in the 1950's.
  Note that these experiments lasted for only a couple of seconds at a time. Any permanent damage, especially in the critical Bragg Peak region, cannot be extrapolated from this for periods of exposure in deep space lasting months.
Obvious explanation? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:05 · Score: 0

Well, if you mainly look at short distances when you grow up your eyes adapt and you become near-sighted.
During the ages books, tv, video-games and whatever have been blamed for this.
The interesting part here is that this might happen to adults if they only are exposed to short distances for a longer period.
This is a field where further research is of interest. Better knowledge of how the eyes develops and how sight could be improved could save a lot of money for society and improve the quality of life for a lot of persons.
Concern by Hentes · 2011-09-23 03:15 · Score: 1

"The question is 'Is there a possibility that an astronaut on a very long mission could arrive at the end of that mission unable to see, or be so visual compromised that he'd be non-functional?' The possibility is real enough that they need to look into this,"
I like how the concern is not that the astronauts will have to live the rest of their lives blind after getting home but that they migh not be able to do research.
1. Re:Concern by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  I like how the concern is not that the astronauts will have to live the rest of their lives blind after getting home but that they migh not be able to do research.
  I'd trade vision to see Mars. Besides, understanding this stuff is why we should keep sending PEOPLE into space.
2. Re:Concern by Sinning · 2011-09-23 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck seeing Mars without vision...
3. Re:Concern by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Where we're going, we don't need eyes.
4. Re:Concern by kryliss · 2011-09-23 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  In the year 4545 You ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes.
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
5. Re:Concern by Lewis+Daggart · 2011-09-23 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'd trade vision to see Mars
  I'm not sure you understand how this works..
Suck my dick, bitch! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:16 · Score: 0

Send me! I have a lasik machine... in my pants!
So it's true by koniu · 2011-09-23 03:16 · Score: 3, Funny

I guess it does get pretty lonely up there
The cause? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 03:19 · Score: 0

I wonder if the cause is related to the fact that there are pretty much two distances to focus on: really really close, or really really really really really really really really really really really really far away.
Your smartphone ... by instagib · 2011-09-23 03:27 · Score: 1

... stop looking at it! Give your eyes a rest!
Seams all too reasonable by erroneus · 2011-09-23 03:37 · Score: 1

The eye is not all that mysterious in my mind. It's a liquid filled ball with a lens and a light sensitive surface. The focus of the lens is managed muscles which contract based on need for focus. But since this is a liquid filled ball, various other forces work against the eye such as gravity and atmospheric pressure.
I'm willing to bet that the cause of the problems have a great deal to do with changes in gravity and air pressure. To me this seems like an obvious thing which should have been considered and accounted for. We know how to create "artificial gravity" by spinning a zero-gravity vehicle and making everyone exist on the outer perimeter. To my knowledge, this isn't being done. Instead, we are still sending boxes into space with people in them.
We already know 0-g affects the body in all sorts of ways. Calling this vision problem a mystery seems kind of stupid.
1. Re:Seams all too reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'd seen this article through LiveScience and had the same thought. This just means that there's a growing body of evidence that some manner of downward acceleration is really, really needed by humans for extended flights.
2. Re:Seams all too reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  So... is it gravity, or is it pressure? (Or lack of exercise because nothing in ISS is more than a few meters away, and they don't spend enough time gawking at Earth?)
  What's that, you don't know which? Heh, sounds like a mystery.
3. Re:Seams all too reasonable by arnodf · 2011-09-23 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  We know how to create "artificial gravity" by spinning a zero-gravity vehicle and making everyone exist on the outer perimeter.
  wikipedia - artificial gravity
  
  To produce 1g, the radius of rotation would have to be 224 m (735 ft) or greater, which would make for a very large spaceship
  Not as easy as you think and think of the benefits we had by ignoring gravity (scientific advancements). Otherwise we'd only have put the first man in space by now IMO.
"Come forward"? They should be routinely testing by spads · 2011-09-23 03:43 · Score: 1

the hell out of them!

--
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
The best solution is.... by WindBourne · 2011-09-23 03:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

to send the astronauts on a one-way mission to mars. The idea of bringing them back is irresponsible. The reason is that we can send a mission to mars in less then 6 months. HOWEVER, returning them is a whole different matter. It will be at least a year. As such the better solution is to send the crew to Mars for at least 10 years, or possibly life.

There are other good reasons to make at least the first couple of trips be one-way. It allows the sending group to focus on keeping a crew alive. That is actually cheaper than coming up with a return vehicle and the fuel for it. By sending one-way, it gives them time to build a base out while doing research on the planet.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:The best solution is.... by rubycodez · 2011-09-23 04:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  We can have the astronauts in a 1G field for most of the trip, extend a boom with counterbalance and spin the ship with large radius. We can send fuel for return trip by automated ship very quickly, at much less cost than sending humans. The astronauts can spend some dual-pod centrifuge time in pairs on mars doing exercises, so they can have strength to be back in earth's 1G field. Such a centrifuge could be made to fold very compactly, using mostly two astronauts weight to counterbalance each other, and a sliding part to equalize any difference in their weights.
2. Re:The best solution is.... by Jeng · 2011-09-23 04:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That is actually cheaper than coming up with a return vehicle and the fuel for it. By sending one-way, it gives them time to build a base out while doing research on the planet.
  
  For efficiencies sake it would be best to have it built before humans land. The base will not be just for shelter, it will be for oxygen, electricity, and food production also.
  Besides that the astronauts would require shelter while building their shelter the amount of food and supplies necessary to keep the astronauts alive while they built their habitat would exceed the cost of building a base with robots before they got there.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:The best solution is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  what if... their ship was their base!
4. Re:The best solution is.... by geekmux · 2011-09-23 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  what if... their ship was their base!
  Oh, now that's just batshit crazy right there. The UAW (United Alien Workers) wouldn't stand for it. No one is turning a damn wrench in this galaxy without union "help".
  Sad part is you think this is a joke. Just watch...
5. Re:The best solution is.... by Jeng · 2011-09-23 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  You will need approximately half an acre per human just for food, a very very large amount of solar panels and/or a nuclear reactor as well as room for all the supplies the astronauts would need on the journey there. You would end up with a ship the size of a small town. Now I won't say that landing a ship the size of a small town on Mars is impossible, but it is improbable.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
6. Re:The best solution is.... by Syberz · 2011-09-23 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As long as there's a hot astronaut co-scientist with me, I'd be willing to make the one-way trip.
  
  --
  ~Syberz
7. Re:The best solution is.... by TheLink · 2011-09-23 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Given enough radiation almost anything will be hot.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
8. Re:The best solution is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  to send the astronauts on a one-way mission to mars. The idea of bringing them back is irresponsible. The reason is that we can send a mission to mars in less then 6 months. HOWEVER, returning them is a whole different matter. It will be at least a year. As such the better solution is to send the crew to Mars for at least 10 years, or possibly life.
  There are other good reasons to make at least the first couple of trips be one-way. It allows the sending group to focus on keeping a crew alive. That is actually cheaper than coming up with a return vehicle and the fuel for it. By sending one-way, it gives them time to build a base out while doing research on the planet.
  So it's agreed Justin Bieber will be the first man on Mars.
9. Re:The best solution is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  How about we send multiple rockets before with a return rocket setup and supplies INSTEAD of giving them that death sentence everyone seems to be against.
10. Re:The best solution is.... by WindBourne · 2011-09-23 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  The ppl that would go to mars on a 4 year trip (6 months out; 18 months there; 18 months back), are not your normal astronauts. These are instead, likely to be heavily science oriented and not minding being loners or in small groups of ppl. IOW, most ppl that apply for such a position would WANT to go on a one-way.
  
  Taking this further, lets assume that most are not. Well, we are talking maybe 6-12 ppl that would be sent on one-way missions. It is VERY easy to locate ppl that would want this. But even when we are talking of one-ways, what is really happening is that these ppl will go, plan on staying there for at least 5 years, if not 10. By then, we should have fast transportation, most likely nuclear. If they want to come back, and assuming no biological contamination issues, then we bring them back. However, I am guessing that they will not want to come back. I mean, if you lived in a place for say 10 years, built up a base and made it habitable for another 20-50 ppl, would you want to come back to earth? Nope. There would be so many interesting things to live on Mars.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
11. Re:The best solution is.... by WindBourne · 2011-09-23 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I have news for you. After 6 months and knowing that it will be just 4 of you , the ugliest gal will look HOT. Besides, there are more important things then looks. They will fade.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
12. Re:The best solution is.... by WindBourne · 2011-09-23 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Costs are the first thing that comes to mind. The next is that from the POV of earth's safety, it is better to send ppl there for 5-10 years and look for biological contamination. However, as I wrote down below, just about anybody that would go to Mars for a 4 year trip, will have little issues with staying 5-10 years, or longer.
  
  Look, we can send a crew there QUICKLY via chemicals. We have the infrastructure for it. What we really need is a NERVA engine on a tug to push a BA unit or two, to get us to Mars in 3-6 months, and then get us back in the same timeframe. However, it is to our benefit to spend the money setting up a base and doing core research there prior to worrying about bringing back the crew.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
13. Re:The best solution is.... by Rakishi · 2011-09-23 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  You will need approximately half an acre per human just for food,
  No you won't, a spaceship won't have a bloody Oklahoma field. It'll have a highly advanced hydroponics greenhouse or similar with a nuclear rector providing essentially unlimited sunlight. Nor will they eat the same space inefficient diet that most Americans do. Nor will they be limited by such things as cost, future soil health and so on. Of course such a system would be used during the journey to Mars so the necessary supplies would be lessened. It would also not be landed all at once but rather piecemeal.
  Which is a lot more plausible than robots capable of creating a full industrial system from scratch on an alien planet. Frankly nothing complicated is going really be built on Mars, it'll all essentially be shipped there pre-made for some time. Just a question of when various pieces get shipped there so those hydroponics systems would get sent there one way or the other.
14. Re:The best solution is.... by cydmab · 2011-09-23 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  When I was a freshman at MIT, a physics professor asked us in class how many would be willing to go to Mars, but only if it were a one way trip. About a quarter of the class raised their hands.
15. Re:The best solution is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-24 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  You have never been married, have you?
16. Re:The best solution is.... by rubycodez · 2011-09-24 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Costs for the things on Mars I discussed are nothing considering the weight of either amount of radiation shielding needed on mars, or the equipment to bore out shielded area. There is no such rush to make short-sighted and dangerous plans.
17. Re:The best solution is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-25 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  Instead of spinning the ship, how about accelerating at 1G half the way, and decelerate at 1G the other half of the journey, although maybe that would use too much fuel.
18. Re:The best solution is.... by WindBourne · 2011-09-25 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm. Let me see. So, there will be no radiation shielding in space, or if we do a 2 way mission? That is your implication.
  
  Obviously that was wrong. Dirt is a wonderful radiation shield. In addition, there are tunnels on mars. . By the time that we go to Mars, 15-20 years out, we will have the ability to grab the iron on the Martian surface and build new equipment. And it will be easy and cheap to do. OTH, sending a craft to mars to land and stay there for several years WITH FULL SUPPLIES FOR 4 years, will require loads of radiation shielding. That shielding will likely be water, but no different than if in the ground. Point is, that sending several robotic missions to mars to build up a front base, and then sending crew to stay there, will be less expensive than doing a 2 way missions. In addition, the crew will probably live longer.
  
  Note, that if mars DOES have life, this is the far safer approach for humanity. Notice that prions can take a decade or longer to show effects. With a one-way, we start a major base, and make sure that nothing there can destroy earth. It is actually irresponsible for us to do a 2 way, while a one-way or a very long 2-way is a great deal more responsible as well as cheaper.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
19. Re:The best solution is.... by WindBourne · 2011-09-25 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  That little? Surprised that it was not more. Generally, the higher the education, the more interest in doing adventure.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
20. Re:The best solution is.... by rubycodez · 2011-09-25 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  if we ever master fusion we can do cool stuff like that.
21. Re:The best solution is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  The ship can provide all of those things for a little while while the crew builds the base. Although it would be good to have some of it done ahead of time, some tasks probably would be very difficult to do robotically.
one more valid argument by nimbius · 2011-09-23 04:00 · Score: 0

against manned space flight. we as a species were never designed to do anything outside of the blue earth, and its hardly likely we'll engineer a way around millions of years of evolution. Dont get me wrong, I stand with science in the hopes that one day we may colonize another planet, but i cant see us expecting months or years of spaceflight to accomplish it.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:one more valid argument by rubycodez · 2011-09-23 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Spin space station or ship to have 1G field, problem solved.
2. Re:one more valid argument by AwesomeMcgee · 2011-09-23 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  What about the red earth? It's an earth too!
Yeah by Dunbal · 2011-09-23 04:01 · Score: 1

The reason for the late discovery of this mysterious affliction is the reluctance of astronauts on active service to come forward
Highly relevant in the absence of a manned space program. Also it sums it up pretty well: I want to have millions of government dollars spent on me to train me, house me and feed me, but I would rather pass up a chance at actually doing the job I am supposed to do even though it's likely I will never get a chance to do it again, because 1 out of 3 (less than half) of my colleagues have had eye problems. Yep, that's "the right stuff" right there. Now tell me again why is it you wanted to be an astronaut?
No wonder the emphasis is on robots.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
they're vs their by martas · 2011-09-23 04:04 · Score: 1, Funny

I stopped reading after "They're desire is to get back into space, so they are not complainers." OK not really, but still kind of a kick in the nuts to see that in a professionally written article...

--
weinersmith
1. Re:they're vs their by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  I agree, but IMO, It's not as bad as seeing 'you' instead of 'your'. I silently scream every time I see that one.
  And I seem to find it quite often.
  I enjoyed reading you post.
2. Re:they're vs their by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  Why does everyone think that because an article is "professional" that it can't have ANY mistakes?
Aren;t many astronauts military pilots? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 04:12 · Score: 0

If so this would lend credence to the shut mouth theory. A pilots greatest enemy is the flight surgeon.
1. Re:Aren;t many astronauts military pilots? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Don't ask, don't tell.
Ask the Russians by hackertourist · 2011-09-23 04:15 · Score: 1

The pool of American astronauts who this may apply to is small, but there's a number of Russians who've been in orbit for long periods.
1. Re:Ask the Russians by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  If you think a Russian astronaut is more likely to report minor ailments than an American, you've obviously never met a Russian.
2. Re:Ask the Russians by hackertourist · 2011-09-23 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  What's there to report? Have them take a standard visual acuity test (one of those optometrist's signs with rows of letters that become smaller). Make sure they can't cheat by learning the chart beforehand.
  The advantage of including the Russians is that they've been doing long flights for far longer than the ISS, so it'll give insight into the long-term effects (if any). Also, many of the Salyut/Mir-era Russians won't be on flight status anymore anyway so won't have an incentive to lie.
Surprised this is news by wosmo · 2011-09-23 04:23 · Score: 1

My father was on submarines, and would come home from a 10-12 week patrol mildly short-sighted. He was ordinarily long-sighted, with a prescription to match.
We tell cube droids to 'rest their eyes' periodically during a 8 hour shift, by taking some time to focus on something that isn't 2 feet away (out the window, etc) exactly because this is a known issue. How did no-one assume that the same would happen on the ISS?
Hmmm, It's pretty hard to lie on a eye test. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 04:28 · Score: 0

Don't they give astronauts a physical when the come back? That would seem obvious.
Atmosphere by Strange+Ranger · 2011-09-23 04:39 · Score: 1

More knowledgable professionals have probably already asked this, but I'm still curious: how closely does the air mixture and atmospheric pressure on the ISS match typical earth conditions?

Eyes breath.

--

Operator, give me the number for 911!
well... by xaoslaad · 2011-09-23 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

As someone who grew up wanting to be a Marine I can tell you I was willing to do anything to get in. When I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease I thought I was done; I had surgey at 15 and had a few section of my intestines removed; 12 inches, 8 inches, and 4 inches. Funny thing was after that I didn't really need meds anymore; not at all actually. Having gone into remission save for almost daily abdominal discomfort or pain, probably because I eat any damn thing I want even though I probably shouldn't.

I walked into recruiting stations over and over again; sometimes years apart until I found a recruiter with an immense tolerance for bullshit. Wouldn't you know it that with enough visits to doctors, MEPS, paperwork going up to Navy BUMED, and everything else I was able to get in. Waiver for Crohn's, waiver for my eyes since they're also complete crap, and moral waiver for being a naughty juvenile on one occassion. They make waivers for everything

Queue four years of active duty service; rank of Sergeant, Good Conduct Medal, NAM, etc., etc. I probably wasn't so much your most likely candidate for success in such an environment and was told lots of times buy lots of people that I couldn't. You're too sick. You're too smart. You're too weak. You can't listen to people telling you what to do...

So, some things to take away from my story:
1.) Fuck everyone who tells you you can't do something.
2.) Everyone is imperfect; make what you can of your lot.
3.) A lot of the general rules in our system just don't work in side cases (like say Crohn's being a permanent disqualifier from military service.)
4.) That's why there's a waiver for everything.
5.) Fuck everyone who tells you you can't do something.

Having been through all that though I can DEFINITELY understand where they are coming from; it is infuriating beyond words to be told you can't do something you know you are full well capable of. I could shoot, I could run, I could do the MOS that was assigned to me (went in open contract), I could swim, and I could do anything else that was asked of me. And I did. When I got out I had a job with a high tech company I am sure everyone here is familiar with as a System Administrator before I even finished my terminal leave and used the G.I. Bill to get my college degree as well.

Some people just don't want to make excuses. They don't want to be a statistic. They don't want to be one of the numbers. They don't want to have one of the myriad bullshit mental conditions 99% of America can be diagnosed with if they just see a doctor so that they can give up lay down and profess that they were willing but unable because of the lot they got in life. They don't want to go around for the rest of their life saying, I tried to join X branch of the military but couldn't because they had flat feet. Not everyone wants to be a charity case if you can believe it. Some of us want to earn our keep and make something of our selves. It is the idea that our country was born on. It's the idea that is lost and will be the cause of this countries demise as well. I feel for these people immensely when their vision starts to go and they have to deal with the possibility of some flight surgeon screwing with them.

Words to live by: Nothing. Will. Ever. Stop. Me.
1. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Inspiring, man
2. Re:well... by Mnemic · 2011-09-23 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  If I had mod points, this post would get em. :thumbs up:
  
  --
  WHY ISNT LS WORKING ON MY PC?! well it's ls not LS LS IS NOT WORKING! turn caps off CAPS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LS!
3. Re:well... by Skreems · 2011-09-23 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In this case, where there are literally tens of people who will actually get to go, it's egotistical as hell to demand that YOU be the one who gets to go, when if you hadn't lied they may have chosen someone more qualified. Who knows what past or future catastrophe could have been prevented if someone who was ACTUALLY as good as you think you are had been in the driver's seat? (I'm talking only about the NASA scenario, not your Marine story)
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
4. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  If your story is true then this is one of the best posts I've ever seen on this site and you are an outstanding person.
  BTW Anastacia also had Crohn's and I bet that her song 'Paid My Dues' is about that struggle. It gets me every time.
5. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 06:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Trying your best, pulling your weight, and being persistent to do something you want to do is a hell of a lot different that jeopardizing your life and the lives of your crew because you want to go into space again. The difference between your story (which I commend, it is very inspirational) and theirs, is they selfishly risking the lives of others.
6. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Gataca
7. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Or, they might have chosen someone even less qualified, but better at lying.
8. Re:well... by DerekLyons · 2011-09-23 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  And you think a Marine that's not fully physically cable isn't jeopardizing the lives of his squadmates in combat?
9. Re:well... by Chris+Burke · 2011-09-23 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  To me, egotistical is believing that what you THINK makes someone qualified outweighs how they ACTUALLY perform.
  This is exactly the mentality the OP was talking about. It's bullshit. "Because of X you can't do Y as well as someone without X." Well, if that's true, then when you ask them to do Y, they won't be able to it as well whether they lied about having X or not.
  Some astronaut lies and so avoids one of your screens. Then, in the actual training and testing they undergo in preparation for a mission, their performance indicates that they are the most qualified and so they are chosen to go on the mission.
  It is not egotistical to want to be given a fair shot and demonstrate their abilities and prove they are qualified in spite of not meeting your criterion.
  Egotistical is saying that despite their performance they were actually less qualified, rather than admitting that your screening process was bullshit. They were ACTUALLY more qualified, but you were so arrogant as to call reality the fraud.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
10. Re:well... by Rakishi · 2011-09-23 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if that's true, then when you ask them to do Y, they won't be able to it as well whether they lied about having X or not.
  So they should just ask someone not to become horribly ill or not to die from a heart condition or not to get seizure or not to have that cancer come back in flight?
  Various conditions, if they occur rarely enough, may not show up during training but can still cause serious problems if they happen during a flight.
  You also can't test for everything so you screen out problems beforehand. You can't, for example, screen for a week of zero gravity since no has has yet invented an anti-gravity machine.
11. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-24 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, a Marine that has lied and is not fully capable may jeopardize the lives of others. However, if everything this guy states and implies is accurate, he was honest about his conditions and went through the proper channels to get the waivers. The waivers do not let someone that isn't capable in... they are proof that someone that had/has a condition is still capable of duty. The astronauts were not honest. They hid their condition... they did not go to NASA doctor's, get tested, and then attempt (and most likely fail) to get waivers.
  The Marines knew what they were getting when xaoslaad signed up. They knew he was fit for somethings, but not others.... He may have filled the role of a grunt with his conditions... but if his vision is as bad as he says, I doubt they would have let him be a scout/sniper. NASA did not know what was happening with the astronauts. They thought they were getting one thing (and they were for the first space mission), but they got something else for the rest of the missions. NASA didn't know what the problems were so they didn't know what limitations to place on the astronauts like the Marines would have on xioslaad.
12. Re:well... by Skreems · 2011-09-26 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hypothetical scenario time: Say the air force still had a rule that only people with natural 20/20 vision could fly fighter planes (I see from elsewhere in this thread that this used to be true, but no longer is... but for the sake of argument). A prospective pilot lies, and passes the tests while wearing contacts. He does his job as well as anyone else, flies hundreds of missions, and feels smug in having proved them wrong. Then during a critical mission, his contact slips, he can't see, becomes distracted and nose-dives into a building full of civilians.
  
  Is that a freak accident? Sure. But it was possible because he lied about something that the people making the rules had tried to account for. The rules for jobs that involve extreme situations aren't about who can do the job the same on an average day. They're about trying to control a bunch of smaller variables as well, to make even unlikely scenarios manageable.
  
  You can argue that some of the restrictions are arbitrary, or not worth controlling, but it seems naive to say "as long as you can pass the tests, it's fine to lie". The tests aren't going to recreate accidents that may happen in the field.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
13. Re:well... by c6gunner · 2011-09-26 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  it's egotistical as hell to demand that YOU be the one who gets to go
  You bet! So?
  
  when if you hadn't lied they may have chosen someone more qualified
  Naw, they would have chosen someone who lies better.
  When you get to high-level selections like those, the decisions made are 99% political. If you want even a slim chance of making it, you'd better be damn good at sucking up, and an expert at lying your ass off and stabbing others in the back without being too blatant about it. Otherwise you may as well not apply.
More power by Animats · 2011-09-23 05:06 · Score: 1

Going to Mars on chemical rockets is never going to work very well. That's a job that needs nuclear power. That was known back in the 1950s. The US and the USSR both had major nuclear rocket development efforts in the 1950s in the 1970s.
With nuclear rockets, a trip to Mars should take about a month.
1. Re:More power by hey · 2011-09-23 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  NASA is testing ion rockets.
Lack of fresh food. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 05:31 · Score: 0

Gotta be able to eat fresh vegetables. Simple as that.
There is no reason to rush humans... by couchslug · 2011-09-23 05:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

...into space. We have a thousand years, two thousand, ten if we like.
Send few humans and many probes. Our supporting, non-space-exploration tech will progress too.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
1. Re:There is no reason to rush humans... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Unless we kill ourselves first....
2. Re:There is no reason to rush humans... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-23 08:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well your nickname sure reflects the sentiment of your post in this case...
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
3. Re:There is no reason to rush humans... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yes 100% agree. My big reason for not rushing humans to Mars is we have no idea what the effect will be of micro-organisms that hitch a lift on humans. You can sterilise space-craft but no way to sterilise humans! Then Mars is a big place, just one spore starts to spread - and who knows what it will evolve into - maybe something that makes future work on Mars hazardous to humans - or that there is native Mars life which hasn't had contact with Earth for millions of years, goes extinct because it can't compete with modern Earth microbes.
4. Re:There is no reason to rush humans... by couchslug · 2011-09-24 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  We REQUIRE machines to interact with the perfectly hostile environment of space. Humans aren't going to trek around Mars in Speedos and sandals.
  It makes sense to have superb machines ready LONG before sending tourists, because human labor will be far too precious to waste on anything but (some) decision-making. We are cheap and expendable on Earth, but horrendously expensive to support off-world.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
That explains a lot, actually by paiute · 2011-09-23 05:50 · Score: 1

I always wondered how "Noisy" Rhysling lost his sight.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Artificial Gravity by SavSoul · 2011-09-23 06:23 · Score: 1

Wouldn't this be solved by building a ring ship with artificial gravity?
1. Re:Artificial Gravity by Y.A.A.P. · 2011-09-23 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't this be solved by building a ring ship with artificial gravity?
  Inevitably, we have a comment from the "didn't RTFA crowd" (since that's generally the majority of /. readers for the past ~7 years), though at least this one isn't as bad as most. FTFA:
  "The vision loss seems to be due to a swelling of the optic nerve, a condition similar to a disease on Earth called pseudotumor cerebri, which mostly afflicts heavy women. Nobody knows why pseudotumor cerebri occurs ... Doctors believe the redistribution of cerebral spinal fluid in weightlessness is to blame, though that doesn't fully explain the situation."
  It is extraordinarily unlikely that artificial gravity will help given that they really don't know exactly what's causing this. Especially since this is similar to a condition experienced by people who could be (euphemistically speaking) considered to be living under conditions of "slightly higher than average gravity".
I can guarantee it. by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-23 06:54 · Score: 1

By the time the U.S. OK's another Mars mission those astronauts are going to be in their 80's.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Screw everyone that comes after you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 08:02 · Score: 0

When you don't report something like this you basically screw everyone coming after you. It's like finding the brakes on your car don't slow you down and you toss the keys to the next guy after your done without saying a word.
Agreed, 110%... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 08:47 · Score: 0

I like what you said, it's the truth & RIGHT way to be, ala "Believe & Achieve"...
APK
1 of my FAV films of all time... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 09:12 · Score: 0

GATTACA (Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine): Vincent's "the man with the plan", & actually sees it through all the way (the ending brings tears to my eyes @ times in fact).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/plotsummary
* IF anyone hasn't seen this? DO!
APK
P.S.=> As a matter of fact - you've "inspired me", going to watch it again tonite with dinner... apk