After feeding upon the thrills of Star Trek, Star Wars, Avatar and their ilk, we (that is, people of the entertainment soaked portion of the world) are conditioned to be optimistic about human beings in space. There’s also the reality of landing on the Moon, the International Space Station, and the inspiring history of astronauts and cosmonauts. We’re also at least dimly aware that occupying space can be unexciting, routine – a grind. What most people don’t know, including many people very interested in human exploration of space, is that there are ‘show stoppers,’ ‘elephants in the room,’ – some very real problems with sustaining human life in outer space. If these problems aren’t overcome, there will be no ‘colonization of space’ or even missions to Mars.

It’s been known for quite some time, at least back to the early days of cosmonauts and astronauts in the 1960’s and 70’s, that there are two huge physical problems with extended living in space: Loss of bone and muscle mass due to weightlessness, and cumulative exposure to radiation, especially solar and cosmic radiation. A third problem generally ignored by Americans in space (NASA) but somewhat explored by the old Soviet space program is psychological: The negative effects of living in extreme close quarters for months on end in a very risky and hostile environment.

There have been many studies of all the problems (just throw any phrase like ‘muscle loss in space’ into a search engine), so it’s disconcerting to see a news release like “Astronauts muscles waste in space” (Marquette University, Wisconsin USA) that goes on about a new study as if it were something of a revelation. Worse yet is the tendency of credulous media to echo the revelation angle without the slightest effort to put it into context or weigh its significance.

It’s bad enough when science fiction wittingly (or unwittingly) ignores the existence of science fiction, or ignores that most consumers of such science fiction narratives are already well schooled in the major scenarios; but when serious science does this with scientific information…

My quarrel is with the handling of the study: Prolonged Space Flight-Induced Alterations in the Structure and Function of Human Skeletal Muscle Fibres, Journal of Physiology, July 26, 2010. (Credit the original scientists with a broader knowledge of the relevant literature, but that does not exculpate them from the handling of their work.) The study focuses on muscle fiber loss and uses real data gathered from biopsies of nine Space Station crew members who spent at least 45 days in space. It is, in fact, the first to look at the problem of muscle loss at the cellular level.

What the PR makes of it is:

This is the equivalent of a 30- to 50-year-old crew member’s muscles deteriorating to that of an 80-year-old. The destructive effects of extended weightlessness to skeletal muscle – despite in-flight exercise – pose a significant safety risk for future manned missions to Mars and elsewhere in the Universe.

[Source: EurekAlert]

Actually what was important about the study was in its conclusions:

An obvious conclusion is that the exercise countermeasures employed were incapable of providing the high-intensity needed to adequately protect fibre and muscle mass, and that the crew’s ability to perform strenuous exercise might be seriously compromised. Our results highlight the need to study new exercise programs on the ISS that employ high resistance and contractions over a wide range of motion to mimic the range occurring in Earth’s 1 g environment.

[Source: Journal of Physiology]

Reading somewhat between the lines – this was to say that NASA and other space agencies, which have been dealing with the effects of bone and muscle loss for decades, haven’t found an exercise, chemical, or psychological regime to overcome the problems. The study is saying, “Back to the drawing board folks or there won’t be any long-term space missions.” However, this is a scientific paper, not a policy statement; so verbal punches are pulled.

The PR handling – and especially the media handling – didn’t need to soften the blow. The context is important. The study is part of a body of evidence that says: Those who explore space – say Mars, for example – will return (if they return at all) with the strength of an 80-year old, or poisoned by solar radiation, or madly dysfunctional. Among all the other dangers in space, this is a reality the space agencies are loath to pass on to the public with any degree of amplification whatsoever. To most of the media, studies about difficulties in space are flotsam in the daily narrative, and so presented with little impact. This makes it more likely solutions to these pivotal problems (solutions which are bound to be expensive to discover and implement, if they can be found at all) will be under-prioritized and under-funded.