5 ms·
> It will also give astronauts the go ahead they need from NASA to travel to Mars. Wait, what? Everything else was worked out, but NASA just went "hold on, we
by apetresc 3y ago
> It will also give astronauts the go ahead they need from NASA to travel to Mars.
Wait, what? Everything else was worked out, but NASA just went "hold on, we can't go to Mars just yet until we figure out what to do if an astronaut gets kidney stones on the way"?
Did the writer just throw this in to make the procedure seem more hip and exciting?
- chmod775 3y agoIt's a real issue in space: > Because space travel makes astronauts prone to kidney stones due, in part to bone demineralization from weightlessness, they are at increased risk. The NASA evidence base and publications note that astronauts have had more than 30 instances of kidney stones within two years of space travel. Medical assistance is a formidable challenge for those orbiting this planet or heading to other solar system destinations. https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/keeping-kidney-stones-bay-during-space-flights https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/keeping-kidney-stones-bay-durin...
- Andrex 3y agoI'm not even sure a free trip to space would be worth a kidney stone, personally.
- bastardoperator 3y agoYeah, hard pass for me, no pun intended.
- throwanem 3y agoI mean if it was only blocking a ureter for ten minutes tops, then sure? Compared to what hydronephrosis feels like, merely voiding one isn't so much of a much, really.
- Firmwarrior 3y agoHaha, wow, what a fun discovery Personally, I don't even like roller coasters.. I'd probably take a kidney stone to avoid having to go to space I'm sure I'll end up there sooner or later though, that's where all the jobs are going to be
- jwestbury 3y agoChronic stone former here, and I can confirm this. That said, I did have a stone large enough to get stuck in the urethra -- not the ureter. The doctor was quite impressed. Unfortunately, I passed it in a public toilet shortly after leaving the doctor, so I wasn't able to capture and measure it. At any rate, hydronephrosis is the real thing to fear in most cases.
- bilsbie 3y agoWe really should be working on artificial gravity via spinning. It solves so many issues. I know smaller craft can’t do this but we can always do a long tether with a counterweight. (My personal pet idea is to go for super low gravity like .05G to start out to simplify things. You still get to walk around, go to the bathroom, spill liquids and clean up, cook, etc. )
- _Microft 3y agoWe have years of experience with both short and long-term missions in zero or micro gravity but we know a lot less about how low gravity affects the human body. We can hope that it is beneficial but what we actually need is a way to study it.
- simcop2387 3y agoAnd there's a very good chance that what we do know about zero/microgravity will still be beneficial with low gravity too. Definitely a reason to work on this even if we do ultimately wait until we have some kind of low gravity solution too.
- Lord-Jobo 3y agohttps://www.nasa.gov/podcasts/houston-we-have-a-podcast/artificial-gravity/ https://www.nasa.gov/podcasts/houston-we-have-a-podcast/arti... This podcast covers a lot of the status on international studies for artificial gravity. "Now we did try to fly a centrifuge on station around 2009 or 2010. And again, it was the same international community and we put together an international proposal to do it on station. And it turns out after a lot of hemming and hawing and the U.S. was going to provide the crew and the integration, the Japanese were going to fly it and the Europeans were going to pay for the device and have it built, and flight certified. It turns out that the station really isn’t designed for that much vibration. So instead of just having a person laying there, we were going to have a person with a cycle ergometer that would spin and do the ergometer. And that much vibration was bad for the station and it was decided that you would have to have a very expensive vibration isolation system that the Europeans weren’t willing to pay for to be able to do it. So, we kind of lost the possibility of doing human centrifuge work on station at this time." So it looks like this is the current issue, and there is a large amount of work going into the physiological side of research to find out exactly what amounts and methods of artificial gravity achieve desired results.
- bscphil 3y ago> The NASA evidence base and publications note that astronauts have had more than 30 instances of kidney stones within two years of space travel. What does this mean? Surely the average astronaut doesn't pass 30 kidney stones every two years, that's more than one a month. So it's either over a specific two year period (for every astronaut in space at the time, probably a lot?) or it's for a specific number of astronauts. Confusing sentence.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tsimionescu 3y agoI think they mean there have been 30 reported cases of an astronaut getting a kidney stone less than 2 years after their latest space flight. Given that astronauts are exceptionally physically fit individuals to start with, at least at the time of their space missions, this is probably quite significant evidence that space flight causes kidney stones.
- at_a_remove 3y agoThe article has a bit in it "This technology is also making it possible for astronauts to travel to Mars, since astronauts are at a greater risk for developing kidney stones during space travel." And then a hyperlink to more information.
- aristus 3y agoAs I understand it, it was not literally the last thing holding back. But NASA worries about everything and we have centuries of examples of remote missions failing because of medical problems that could not be solved in the field. Billions of dollars, tens of years, and a ship full of lives can't be risked on a 3mm pebble if it can possibly be prevented.
- hanniabu 3y ago> we have centuries of examples of remote missions failing decades*
- ToValueFunfetti 3y agoDepends on how broadly you define "remote missions"
- kstrauser 3y agoI assume they’re including sailing ships dealing with scurvy, and things like that. We haven’t been in space very long, but we’re a species of explorers.
- morkalork 3y agoThe Franklin Expedition of 1845 comes to mind. There were even theories about new-ish technology (tinned food) accidentally poisoning the crew with lead.
- letmevoteplease 3y agoNASA currently considers kidney stones an unacceptable risk for a Mars mission that requires mitigation.[1] There are also about 10 other risks requiring mitigation, though.[1] [1] https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/risk.aspx?i=81 https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/risk.aspx?i=81 [2] https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/ https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/
- ghufran_syed 3y agoNASA saying there is a “research gap” and that it “needs mitigation” is very different from it being an “unacceptable risk” which implies that no mission can happen until it happens. if there was a ship ready to go with a hab and propellant for the return trip sitting on mars, I can guarantee they would take the very next transfer window, kidney stone risk notwithstanding- particularly if the chinese or russians were about to do so and might get there first!
- hypercube33 3y agoI mean I just watched a bunch of documentaries about Challenger and Columbia...you're damn right they would rubber stamp it.
- bumby 3y agoWhat’s your definition of rubber stamping? Usually it means approving without any consideration. In both of those cases, there was a lot of deliberation. Their end conclusion may have been wrong, but it’s really quite different than “rubber stamping”
- bumby 3y agoAccording to the method by which NASA measures risk, it is indeed an "unacceptable risk". The red 4x4 "LxC" box stands for "likelihood x consequence". So they consider it a high likelihood and a severe consequence. It's red because that puts it in the unacceptable category. If you look at the medical risk matrix it puts the likelihood between 60% - 80% and consequence at "loss time injury or illness per OSHA criteria" On a score of 1 (least risky) to 25 (most risky), a 4x4 scores 22. Now to your point about "guaranteeing" they would still go, they are allowed to waive these risks through a formal process. It tends to make managers squeamish though, because nobody wants to be the person who's signature is attached to a known risk that eventually causes a mishap. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s3001_guidelines_for_risk_management_-_ver_g_-_10-25-2017.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s3001_guidel...
- add-sub-mul-div 3y ago[flagged]
- apetresc 3y agoI did read; I saw the additional sentence that, yes, astronauts are at increased risk of kidney stones. I get that. My surprise comes from the fact that a trip to Mars is already incredibly risky and any astronaut signing up likely is at peace with never coming home. I would think "painful kidney stones" or "non-ideal kidney stone treatment" is far enough down the list of potential concerns for such an astronaut that it wouldn't block NASA from giving "the go ahead they need to travel to Mars", which is what the article says. Like, I get that NASA funds all sorts of things like this. I just can't quite believe that this is considered a showstopper. Like the famous apocryphal anecdote about needing to develop a zero-gravity pen before the moon mission; I'd have been equally surprised, even knowing that story, to hear that NASA wouldn't have launched the moon mission until they figured the pen out.
- add-sub-mul-div 3y agoSure, but none of that surprise warrants accusing the writer of anything like you did. It's not an article about the space program. It mentions the relevance to the space program and links to more information about it.
- felixgallo 3y agowhether or not the astronaut is willing to take the risk, kidney stones can be so painful that someone suffering from them could potentially jeopardize the mission from incapacity or increased risk of making a mistake. Even if the astronaut were personally signed up for a suicide mission, there's a lot of incredibly expensive and difficult science and exploration to be done.
- jawns 3y agoI know the Internet cloak of anonymity makes us feel comfortable saying things we wouldn't feel comfortable saying face-to-face to a colleague, but HN tries to promote civility in our comments, and yours demonstrates a lack of it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- joduplessis 3y agoNot to the moon or the space station, but to Mars. Yes, next stop is Mars folks.