Slashdot Mirror


Vision Problems For Some Returning Astronauts

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."

36 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Vision problems by said213 · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
  2. One of many? by SoTerrified · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    3. Re:One of many? by instagib · · 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.

    4. Re:One of many? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:One of many? by Shadowmist · · 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.

    6. Re:One of many? by YrWrstNtmr · · 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.

    7. Re:One of many? by Alomex · · 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.

    8. Re:One of many? by Surt · · 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
    9. Re:One of many? by rjune · · 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.

    10. Re:One of many? by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · · 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.

    11. Re:One of many? by tak+amalak · · Score: 2

      Like drive across country in a diaper?

      --
      Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
  3. Weightlessness is a Bitch by Denogh · · 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 Richard_at_work · · 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?

    2. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by TheRaven64 · · 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
    3. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by nomel · · 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.

    4. Re:Weightlessness is a Bitch by TheLink · · 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).

      --
  4. Re:Lasik by Nick+Fel · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not letting a Lasik specialist with blurry vision point a laser at my eyes.

  5. Re:so let me get this straight... by sandytaru · · 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.
  6. So it's true by koniu · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess it does get pretty lonely up there

  7. Re:so let me get this straight... by Kjella · · 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
  8. Re:so let me get this straight... by Chris+Burke · · 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
  9. Re:Cosmic rays by bill_mcgonigle · · 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)
  10. The best solution is.... by WindBourne · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Syberz · · 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
  11. Re:Lasik by Richard_at_work · · 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.

  12. Re:Lasik by Richard_at_work · · 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/

  13. Re:From a glasses user: by 0123456 · · 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.

  14. well... by xaoslaad · · 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 Skreems · · 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
    2. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  15. Re:Lasik by TheBig1 · · 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

  16. Re:There is no reason to rush humans... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well your nickname sure reflects the sentiment of your post in this case...