Why Do We Need To Go To Space?

We need to go to space for several reasons.  We are explorers.  We need the jobs.  We need the medical research.

Humans have always been explorers.  From the earliest point in time we have been on the move - across continents, across oceans, under the seas, through the air, into space.  We need to see, we need to feel, we need to know.  We have google-mapped the planet and we still need to know more.  We have been to the moon, we have sent probes to the planets and we still need to know more.

We need the jobs.  People balk at the large price tag for space exploration.  And that is a good thing.  But, the vast majority of the price tag goes to salaries.  And those salaries go to people right here on earth.  Those salaries pay for mortgages, car loans, groceries, movie tickets, cable bills, internet bills, hair cuts, and much more.  Every dollar spent for space explorations circulates through our economy several times and keeps many businesses going.  Cut space programs and jobs dry up quickly.

Yes there are probably more cost effective ways to do medical research, but there is some research which requires the special environment found in low earth orbit.  Cancer research, osteoporosis, chromosome analysis are just a  few of the places benefiting from research done in space.  For more of these benefits read this ABC News article.

Yes the budget will be cut.  That is the political climate in Washington these days.  Let's hope they make intelligent cuts.  Cuts that make sense.  Cuts that don't hamstring NASA's ability to explore, create jobs, and conduct vital research.

Flying Blind in Space Long-Term?

In a September 2nd article on the website MedLine Plus, a site run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, being in space for extended periods of time can affect your eyesight.

"The new study, of more than 300 astronauts in the U.S. space program, found that almost 50 percent of those who served on long missions -- six months or more -- reported experiencing new problems with their ability to see objects near to them while in space and for some time after returning to Earth. Roughly 23 percent of astronauts who spent shorter periods in orbit reported problems with their near vision during their missions and after getting home."

Yikes!  I hope we can find a solution for this.  Otherwise, we will not be able to see what we discover when we go venturing away from the planet.

Studying this and other space health issues should be something we are doing on the International Space Station.  After all, we don't even know what the health effects are for someone staying in space for as short as two years.  Hey, NASA, let's put some money into this please.

To view the entire Medline Plus article, click here.

Delivering bad news to astronauts

A recent article in ScrippsNews posed the following question in the title of their article: "Should NASA deliver bad news to astronauts in space?" This... in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy (her husband is astronaut Mark Kelly.)

The article can be found here: http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/should-nasa-deliver-bad-news-astronauts-space.

What's your opinion? Should astronauts be shielded from events on earth of a personal nature? What's more important-- keeping a family member informed... or ensuring all systems nominal on a space mission?

George Whitesides and Virgin Galactic

Looks like George Whitesides has bailed from NASA to assume the CEO role at Virgin Galactic.

As one of my colleagues put it, "this man wants to fly...so... NASA isn't going anywhere soon."

I think the prevailing wisdom is that Virgin Galactic is the pack leader in terms of commercial launch vehicle development. And, doesn't George want to spend his honeymoon on a VG flight?

That may very well be... but I question when any of these commercial carriers are really going to start flying. Any thoughts out there on the real timelines... and whether this "commercial spaceflight market" does-- or will-- exist? Will anyone make any money... or are we listening to a bunch of "PT Barnums"(to quote another colleague.)

So now that the International Space Station is near completion, here come the platitudes about its value as a research platform being fully realized, etc. Indeed, platitudes abound (particularly promulgated by NASA over the years) regarding the value of space research conducted on the space shuttle as well as the ISS. Some have questioned the "real" return on investment of such research (the IOM report which cited the waste of time that protein crystallization experiments have been is one that immediately comes to mind.)

One oft-cited "factoid" about space research concerns the value of biomedical investigation... and how knowledge of the physiological effects of spaceflight can lead to effective "countermeasures" to mitigate such effects. Nevertheless, has any of this research really led to breakthroughs in true countermeasures? What has the NSBRI been doing all these years? As one colleague has put it, the only effective countermeasure to the physiologic effects of spaceflight is.... a Gravity Prescription. Indeed, man has evolved in a 1G environment... and if taken out of that environment, logic would dictate that replacing that G force is the obvious answer to the deleterious physiologic effects which occur in microgravity.

The problem is.... what IS the Gravity Prescription and how to we "make" it? I'd love to hear some of your ideas and speculations (or frank disagreements with my opinions regarding the "real" value of space research.)