Summary from elsewhere
The International Space Station (|SS) has low microbial diversity, which could lead to astronaut health issues, according to a study published in Cell.
Researchers found that the microbial communities resemble those found in sanitized environments like hospitals rather than natural settings.
Co-senior study author Pieter Dorrestein explains that increasing microbial exposure could improve astronaut health during long-term space travel.
The study suggests incorporating natural elements, like soil, into the ISS to enhance microbial diversity and astronaut well-being.
The study in question:
Unpopular opinion, I know, but humans simply are not built for space. Trying to force this square peg into a round hole is such a tremendous waste of resources at this point.
I wish we could divert all of human space flight budget to automating probes. We’d be mining the asteroid belt by now. Once we have space-based automated manufacturing, then it will be the time to bring in the humans.
I do want to say that you’re totally right about space based manufacturing key to any real expansion into space. I mean automated would be nice, but it’s not totally necessary. Getting manufacturing to work in space at all is going to take some serious experimentation, so it can’t really start 100% automated. But on the other hand, I do expect robotic drones to play a major role, even in the beginning.
Humans aren’t built for 0g, and I expect we will never live whole lives like that. But living in space does not require living in 0g.
I’m quite certain that if humans manage to survive and continue to thrive for another 200 years, we will absolutely be living in space. And at that point it will be inevitable that the number of humans living in space will eventually come to dwarf the number living on planets.
Gravity isn’t the only issue. Radiation and cosmic rays are a much bigger problem than that. Psychological issues from being in cramped ships for so long. Food production. All sorts of other crap, too.
Radiation isn’t that big a deal. If you have a large enough structure for a colony, or even large enough for 50 people, then you have plenty of mass for radiation shielding. At that scale it’s a non-issue.
Well, only at first… Families don’t want to live in cramped ships, so they won’t. They’ll live in artificial habitats with grass and open spaces. Eventually they’ll be large enough to have rivers and mountains.
But even without all that, just ask anyone who’s served on a submarine if it’s possible to survive in cramped quarters. It’s doable.
Have you read A City on Mars yet? I’d recommend it!
People are very fervent about space travel as humanity’s ‘destiny’ or last hope, which i agreed with until the book convinced me otherwise. You’re correct, we are basically infants coming out of the cradle and expecting to run (space) when we should be learning to walk (Earth).
I haven’t, but I’ll put it on my wishlist. Thanks!
Yeah, I knew I was gonna get downvoted for it. I get it. I am also enamored with human space flight, and it’s why I’m such a massive sci-fi fan. It’s such a romantic notion. I feel no joy in accepting that humanity isn’t meant for the stars.
But Neanderthals weren’t meant to colonize the earth. Sometimes the species needs to leap forward to meet new challenges.
Regardless, we would need some understanding of the subtle and complex effects of leaving the planet before we could mitigate issues that would arise.
Absolutely. I just think we’re putting the cart before the horse, and human space flight should come later.
I mean we send probes too.
Totally. And we should ramp up the funding of those teams to send more, even to the detriment of human space flight programs.
Isn’t that mostly what has been happening? We send humans to do things humans need, and send robots when it’s impractical for humans.
I would argue it’s almost always impractical to send humans.
Even on the ISS? They do real science than can’t be done on earth, and we didn’t have technology to do that science with robots. Maybe we do now, but it’s probably more worthwhile to develop those robots for deeper space activities rather than a dying space station orbiting earth.
I think we do have it now. It’s time to shift.
If we spent half as much resources on the space industry as we did on war and conflict, we’d have colonized the entire system by now. Space is such a tiny fraction of the things the world spends money on. It’s pathetic. It’s not this massive drain on resources you think it is. The US military wastes an entire Apollo program’s worth of money in probably a month.
Space exploration has always been at mercy of politicians, especially manned spaceflight. It’s only recently we’ve got a long-term space station used for real research, and it’s about to be decommissioned because there is no political clout to be gained from sending humans to low Earth orbit anymore. Unlike planting a flag on Moon or Mars for which politicians are willing to spend trillions (but which has dubious scientific value).
Automatic probes are the only real future for space exploration because they are much cheaper than manned space programs (and thus easier to fund) and you can send them farther.
I completely agree. I’m referring to the existing funding mechanism, where decisions have to be made on which programs get a slice of a very small pie. Human space flight operations are an inefficient use of limited funds at this stage.
Especially with regards to Mars. I think it’s a massive mistake to be pushing for Mars colonization at all, until we can manufacture most of what’s needed in space or on Mars, and not have to send every single bolt up the gravity well.
We’re not mining the asteroid belt because the cost of getting stuff in and out of space isn’t worth it. I don’t think that’s going to change for a long time. But I actually agree that there’s a lot of signs that space and low grav might just be bad for humans long term, period.
By mining the asteroid belt, we’d never need to put anything in space again (except humans and their food). No more limitations on ship sizes based on what we can afford to launch.
It’s a scary word to use, but humanity does need some form of eugenics for space travel.
No, not the racial kind.
We need to breed resistance to radiation and adaption to low oxygen or low gravity environments.
We need to be able to be stuck in cramped quarters around other people for years without eventually killing each other.
We need to be able to be cryogenically frozen for long periods of time and then reanimated.
None of this is possible without fundamentally editing the genes of humans. We essentially need to evolve into a new species.
I still think that’s trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. For biological humans to be able to explore the solar system, we need to advance in space-based manufacturing and AI control of those systems. Then there’s no more need for cramped spaces, for one. The AI can capture the appropriate asteroids, start towing them towards earth, and have a massive space shuttle ready to take on passengers when it arrives. Same for planetary accommodations, where the AI can set up everything before we arrive.
Having to launch every single piece of material from out of the gravity well of earth is just not scalable or realistic.
For us to be more than just tourists in our solar system, and especially before we get to other stars, I really think we need to sort out how to digitize human minds.
Or we could just like shield radiation, and provide oxygen/gravity.
Relying on evolution for this sounds like it’d take a couple millennium longer than just like a spinning slab of concrete with a rebreather inside.
Just put a CRC in DNA, ezpz
Well … duh. In order for humans to be “in space,” we have to send them inside little bubbles of “earth.”
A good deal of the point of sending people to space is discovering how people respond to being in space, figuring out which stresses are acceptable and which must be compensated for.
And if we did that, we would still have to do the things we’re doing right now to figure out how to maintain human beings in spacecraft for long periods of time. There’s nothing wrong with doing both at once.
The fact also remains that it is much easier to operate a manned spacecraft than it is to operate an autonomous/remote one, at the scales of complexity that manned craft and their experiments employ.
I disagree, so long as space programs remain underfunded. Give them access to the defense budget? Then yeah, go to town and create even more diverse efforts.
One benefit we couldn’t get from robots is the disease and medical knowledge we’ve gained from human space travel
https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/about/everyday-benefits-of-space-exploration/improving-health-care.asp
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9833174/
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/space-station-leads-to-breakthroughs-in-human-health-on-earth/
Some of these could have been done without space travel for sure, but it’s hard to predict what we’ll learn before we do things
Totally. I think there’s plenty to learn from human space flight. I just think we need to put it lower on the priority list for the moment, unless we can get it better funded.