6 ms·

The Grim and Gory Reality of Surgery in Space

90 points by cmsefton 11y ago

iwwr 11y ago
All this could be avoided by fully implementing artificial gravity on deep-space journeys. This should not be particularly difficult and would involve just taking the last rocket stage along for the ride, tied to a tether. Rotate to produce gravity. Even if the zero-g journey to Mars is uneventful, astronauts will be severely weakened by the time they arrive there, even with heavy exercise and preventative measures. And in the first few weeks they actually do the most and heaviest work. So there's a little mystery why NASA insists on trying to find a pharmacological or mechanical workaround when artificial gravity is right there.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  IDK, considering they have a lot more people working on the problems than just some guy on the internet, I'm assuming they have good reasons.
  - techdragon 11y ago
    One is mechanical engineering but the other generates thousands of valuable research papers each year. Research papers that prove NASA are doing their job. The other simpler way requires expensive in orbit construction to do anything in the way of research.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure if we earmarked some money for NASA build and launch an artificial gravity test bed to the ISS, they'd do it. We just haven't.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Modu...
  - iwwr 11y ago
    Mind you, I'm not against research in either drugs or mechanical solutions (better exercise machines), but they could serve as backup in case the main system - centripetal acceleration - is malfunctioning. One question NASA has yet to answer is the minimal level of gravity necessary to prevent muscle and bone degradation. Is the Moon or Mars human-habitable in terms of gravity? If that's not the case, then mission plans would have to include rotating habitats for planetary surfaces, which makes matters a little more complex.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      You're joking right? A quick google search returns hundreds of resources from nasa.gov about research into bone and muscle degradation.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        Hundreds of resources from nasa.gov regarding research into bone and muscle degradation don't automatically translate to what the parent asked for, for NASA "to answer (...) the minimal level of gravity necessary to prevent muscle and bone degradation".
        AndrewKemendo 11y ago
        It's probably the wrong question was my real point.
    - eximius 11y ago
      Is there one? I imagine it is a proportional effect. You'd experience degredation at .9g, it just wouldn't be nearly as bad. The more interesting, and difficult I'd wager, is what is the minimum healthy level.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Lots of things in large organizations are done for political, budgetary, turf-war, ideological and finally idiot-in-charge reasons, not necessarily for "good reasons".
- deelowe 11y ago
  How do you propose this would work actually? The last article I read on the subject suggested that AG isn't viable near term as the space craft would have to be prohibitively large. I recall the primary issue being that living quarters have to be a certain distance from the axis of rotation. [EDIT] Here you go. The relevant info is on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation The radius of rotation would have to be a minumum of 224 meters.
  - slfnflctd 11y ago
    ...meaning a diameter of almost half a kilometer, or over a quarter mile-- more than four times the longest part of the current ISS, which took over 12 years and 150 billion dollars (and is essentially flat when compared to the cylinder shape needed for AG). I can see why this might be a bit of a challenge, the time and costs involved would be enormous.
    - iwwr 11y ago
      See my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10649760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10649760
    - pavel_lishin 11y ago
      Why would you need a full cylinder? Living quarters on one side, (rocket stage) counterweight on the other, tether in between. You'd probably want all that stuff reeled in together for acceleration and deceleration, but you can unspool the whole thing while you're coasting in between.
      - Xylakant 11y ago
        so how do we stop the rotation while reeling in for acceleration? Shortening the tether would accelerate the objects at the end and we'd end up with a rotating drum filled with seasick astronauts. I sincerely doubt it's that easy.
- creshal 11y ago
  You make it sound like tethering in space is a solved problem – it isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether_missions Reliable reeling mechanisms that actually work in vacuum seem a yet unsolved problem, and there's occasional research into it. Sure, there could be more, but it's not like the lack of gravity is the only (medical) problem to solve for a Mars flight.
  - troutwine 11y ago
    Oh shoot, I accidentally downvoted you when I meant to upvote. Terribly sorry! Parent commenter presents this idea occasionally without justification. At present stage of research, as you correctly point out, tethering in space is further out than biomedical research.
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Eventually, orbital stations and deep-space manned craft will have to incorporate some kind of rotating habitat within a fixed shell, akin to designs appearing in recent sci-fi flics. The superstructure of a spaceship would not rotate, but would contain a rotating element accessible from the zero-G axis. An orbital station would likely be similar, with a rotating section and a stationary section, for ease of docking and to reduce the dangers of space walks (we don't want astronauts flying out the airlock at 1 g acceleration). I believe this was the flaw in the orbital station in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The criticism of centripetal force as a substitute for planetary gravity is that it has directional vectors of force that would make you dizzy every time you turn your head. Presumably, the larger the structure, the more subtle these forces become. Perhaps humans can get used to these lateral forces over time, if indeed it is an issue at all. Having the simulated gravity would be very useful, especially in medical situations but also simply for the purposes of maintaining bone density and muscular health, both of which suffer enormously in zero-G conditions over long stretches.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  > The criticism of centripetal force as a substitute for planetary gravity is that it has directional vectors of force that would make you dizzy every time you turn your head. Presumably, the larger the structure, the more subtle these forces become. Perhaps humans can get used to these lateral forces over time, if indeed it is an issue at all. I wonder if astronauts would develop "land sickness" that affects some people coming from cruises - constant dizziness when out of spin gravity.
- molsongolden 11y ago
  Also, rotating cylinders might provide spin gravity without the lateral forces. Entry/exit access at the ends. The downside is the chaos that will ensue if the mechanism rotating the cylinder loses power and people/objects begin raining down. The raining down might only be an issue while under thrust though since objects might otherwise just float off the cylinder wall.
  - AlphaSite 11y ago
molsongolden 11y ago
See the awesome "The Expanse" series for some fleshed out thoughts and ideas along these lines! I don't want to give away any spoilers here but the authors describe a huge ship designed for long-term deep space travel/living with the capability to "spin up the drum". The drum is a ~2km long tube that generates spin gravity when engaged, inside which the ship crew can live and farm. There are also frequent but subtle mentions of the effects of spin gravity. For example, the apartments closer to the center of stations are cheaper due to the higher spin forces. I am just starting the fourth book but the first three have been great. Quick, light reading but still a full-fledged space opera that is thought provoking and engaging.
thatstwo 11y ago
Blah blah _bloody clickbait_ blah. The objective reality of our world and this (Eurasian part of) its species is that we have already reached the sorry apex of our "space travel": in other words it's not getting any better or more involved or complicated, or indeed gory and dangerous than it is now. EVAR. This is it: humans (9 times out of 10, air force personnel - not scientists, not engineers) spinning safely albeit wildly, around this planet at an altitude of 350-400 kilometers in a bunch of excruciatingly expensive modules ("ISS") with artificially created 0 gravity (actual low Earth orbit gravity at that altitude is about 96-97 percent of what it is right where I, and you, sit now). .... and if anything goes wrong, the Ruskies ship them down to Earth ASAP to get operated on, or whatever. That's all. So - what was that thing about "surgery in space"? Where? When? What species might have to do it? Not _us_ - I assure you, BBC, you poor Buzzfeed competitor, you. And those people up there "in space" are, as of Nov. 30 and the latest news, being sent "caviar, fruit, and chocolate" - but no vodka? http://tass.ru/en/science/840306 http://tass.ru/en/science/840306 Eh??? I wouldn't wanna be on that "space station" when the Russian segment finds out about this conspicuous and inexplicable lack of the core "good times" component.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Haha, you guys, us Russians can't live without vodka, right? What witty observational humor! And I sure do hope they shipped a 40 of malt liquor up there when astronauts of African descent were up there, too, yeah?
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    His gratuitous insult of Russians was absurd and uncalled for. However, his other point has a lot of validity. Sending people into space and keeping them there is extremely expensive. Absent any major cost breakthroughs, I agree with his assessment of 'the sorry apex of our "space travel"'. Where will the money come from?
    - pavel_lishin 11y ago
      You sure extracted a lot of meaning out of some rambling. Technology tends to go up and up and up - at any given point, you're almost certainly at the apex of something, without necessarily a clear path to the next hilltop.

90 points by cmsefton 11y ago

iwwr 11y ago

All this could be avoided by fully implementing artificial gravity on deep-space journeys. This should not be particularly difficult and would involve just taking the last rocket stage along for the ride, tied to a tether. Rotate to produce gravity. Even if the zero-g journey to Mars is uneventful, astronauts will be severely weakened by the time they arrive there, even with heavy exercise and preventative measures. And in the first few weeks they actually do the most and heaviest work. So there's a little mystery why NASA insists on trying to find a pharmacological or mechanical workaround when artificial gravity is right there.

moron4hire 11y ago
IDK, considering they have a lot more people working on the problems than just some guy on the internet, I'm assuming they have good reasons.
- techdragon 11y ago
  One is mechanical engineering but the other generates thousands of valuable research papers each year. Research papers that prove NASA are doing their job. The other simpler way requires expensive in orbit construction to do anything in the way of research.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure if we earmarked some money for NASA build and launch an artificial gravity test bed to the ISS, they'd do it. We just haven't.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Modu...
- iwwr 11y ago
  Mind you, I'm not against research in either drugs or mechanical solutions (better exercise machines), but they could serve as backup in case the main system - centripetal acceleration - is malfunctioning. One question NASA has yet to answer is the minimal level of gravity necessary to prevent muscle and bone degradation. Is the Moon or Mars human-habitable in terms of gravity? If that's not the case, then mission plans would have to include rotating habitats for planetary surfaces, which makes matters a little more complex.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    You're joking right? A quick google search returns hundreds of resources from nasa.gov about research into bone and muscle degradation.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Hundreds of resources from nasa.gov regarding research into bone and muscle degradation don't automatically translate to what the parent asked for, for NASA "to answer (...) the minimal level of gravity necessary to prevent muscle and bone degradation".
      - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
        It's probably the wrong question was my real point.
  - eximius 11y ago
    Is there one? I imagine it is a proportional effect. You'd experience degredation at .9g, it just wouldn't be nearly as bad. The more interesting, and difficult I'd wager, is what is the minimum healthy level.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Lots of things in large organizations are done for political, budgetary, turf-war, ideological and finally idiot-in-charge reasons, not necessarily for "good reasons".
deelowe 11y ago
How do you propose this would work actually? The last article I read on the subject suggested that AG isn't viable near term as the space craft would have to be prohibitively large. I recall the primary issue being that living quarters have to be a certain distance from the axis of rotation. [EDIT] Here you go. The relevant info is on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation The radius of rotation would have to be a minumum of 224 meters.
- slfnflctd 11y ago
  ...meaning a diameter of almost half a kilometer, or over a quarter mile-- more than four times the longest part of the current ISS, which took over 12 years and 150 billion dollars (and is essentially flat when compared to the cylinder shape needed for AG). I can see why this might be a bit of a challenge, the time and costs involved would be enormous.
  - iwwr 11y ago
    See my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10649760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10649760
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    Why would you need a full cylinder? Living quarters on one side, (rocket stage) counterweight on the other, tether in between. You'd probably want all that stuff reeled in together for acceleration and deceleration, but you can unspool the whole thing while you're coasting in between.
    - Xylakant 11y ago
      so how do we stop the rotation while reeling in for acceleration? Shortening the tether would accelerate the objects at the end and we'd end up with a rotating drum filled with seasick astronauts. I sincerely doubt it's that easy.
creshal 11y ago
You make it sound like tethering in space is a solved problem – it isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether_missions Reliable reeling mechanisms that actually work in vacuum seem a yet unsolved problem, and there's occasional research into it. Sure, there could be more, but it's not like the lack of gravity is the only (medical) problem to solve for a Mars flight.
- troutwine 11y ago
  Oh shoot, I accidentally downvoted you when I meant to upvote. Terribly sorry! Parent commenter presents this idea occasionally without justification. At present stage of research, as you correctly point out, tethering in space is further out than biomedical research.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

Eventually, orbital stations and deep-space manned craft will have to incorporate some kind of rotating habitat within a fixed shell, akin to designs appearing in recent sci-fi flics. The superstructure of a spaceship would not rotate, but would contain a rotating element accessible from the zero-G axis. An orbital station would likely be similar, with a rotating section and a stationary section, for ease of docking and to reduce the dangers of space walks (we don't want astronauts flying out the airlock at 1 g acceleration). I believe this was the flaw in the orbital station in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The criticism of centripetal force as a substitute for planetary gravity is that it has directional vectors of force that would make you dizzy every time you turn your head. Presumably, the larger the structure, the more subtle these forces become. Perhaps humans can get used to these lateral forces over time, if indeed it is an issue at all. Having the simulated gravity would be very useful, especially in medical situations but also simply for the purposes of maintaining bone density and muscular health, both of which suffer enormously in zero-G conditions over long stretches.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
> The criticism of centripetal force as a substitute for planetary gravity is that it has directional vectors of force that would make you dizzy every time you turn your head. Presumably, the larger the structure, the more subtle these forces become. Perhaps humans can get used to these lateral forces over time, if indeed it is an issue at all. I wonder if astronauts would develop "land sickness" that affects some people coming from cruises - constant dizziness when out of spin gravity.
molsongolden 11y ago
Also, rotating cylinders might provide spin gravity without the lateral forces. Entry/exit access at the ends. The downside is the chaos that will ensue if the mechanism rotating the cylinder loses power and people/objects begin raining down. The raining down might only be an issue while under thrust though since objects might otherwise just float off the cylinder wall.
- AlphaSite 11y ago

molsongolden 11y ago

See the awesome "The Expanse" series for some fleshed out thoughts and ideas along these lines! I don't want to give away any spoilers here but the authors describe a huge ship designed for long-term deep space travel/living with the capability to "spin up the drum". The drum is a ~2km long tube that generates spin gravity when engaged, inside which the ship crew can live and farm. There are also frequent but subtle mentions of the effects of spin gravity. For example, the apartments closer to the center of stations are cheaper due to the higher spin forces. I am just starting the fourth book but the first three have been great. Quick, light reading but still a full-fledged space opera that is thought provoking and engaging.

thatstwo 11y ago

Blah blah _bloody clickbait_ blah. The objective reality of our world and this (Eurasian part of) its species is that we have already reached the sorry apex of our "space travel": in other words it's not getting any better or more involved or complicated, or indeed gory and dangerous than it is now. EVAR. This is it: humans (9 times out of 10, air force personnel - not scientists, not engineers) spinning safely albeit wildly, around this planet at an altitude of 350-400 kilometers in a bunch of excruciatingly expensive modules ("ISS") with artificially created 0 gravity (actual low Earth orbit gravity at that altitude is about 96-97 percent of what it is right where I, and you, sit now). .... and if anything goes wrong, the Ruskies ship them down to Earth ASAP to get operated on, or whatever. That's all. So - what was that thing about "surgery in space"? Where? When? What species might have to do it? Not _us_ - I assure you, BBC, you poor Buzzfeed competitor, you. And those people up there "in space" are, as of Nov. 30 and the latest news, being sent "caviar, fruit, and chocolate" - but no vodka? http://tass.ru/en/science/840306 http://tass.ru/en/science/840306 Eh??? I wouldn't wanna be on that "space station" when the Russian segment finds out about this conspicuous and inexplicable lack of the core "good times" component.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Haha, you guys, us Russians can't live without vodka, right? What witty observational humor! And I sure do hope they shipped a 40 of malt liquor up there when astronauts of African descent were up there, too, yeah?
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  His gratuitous insult of Russians was absurd and uncalled for. However, his other point has a lot of validity. Sending people into space and keeping them there is extremely expensive. Absent any major cost breakthroughs, I agree with his assessment of 'the sorry apex of our "space travel"'. Where will the money come from?
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    You sure extracted a lot of meaning out of some rambling. Technology tends to go up and up and up - at any given point, you're almost certainly at the apex of something, without necessarily a clear path to the next hilltop.