Humans who travel to Mars risk permanent kidney damage

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 590   +13
Staff
Why it matters: A manned mission to Mars is a long-term goal of the scientific community. However, a new study has presented a significant challenge to this objective: human kidneys may not endure the long trip to the Red Planet. While scientists are already considering potential solutions, much more research is needed.

Elon Musk believes humans will be able to land on Mars within five to 10 years. NASA also expects this will happen at some point.

However, new research by scientists at University College London casts doubt on these aspirations. The study found that the structure and function of the kidneys change during space flight, with galactic radiation causing permanent damage. Published in Nature Communications, this study is the largest analysis of kidney health in space flight to date. It also offers the first health dataset for commercial astronauts.

"If we don't develop new ways to protect the kidneys, I'd say that while an astronaut could make it to Mars, they might need dialysis on the way back," said Dr. Keith Siew, the first author of the study from the London Tubular Centre, based at the UCL Department of Renal Medicine.

Since the 1970s, it has been clear that space flight causes health issues for astronauts, such as loss of bone mass, weakening of the heart and eyesight, and the development of kidney stones. It is theorized that exposure to space radiation, such as solar winds from the Sun and Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) from deep space, is the cause. Earth's magnetic field provides at least partial protection to the manned space flights that take place in low Earth orbit. The 24 people who have traveled to the Moon were exposed to unmitigated GCR, but only for a period of six to 12 days.

To determine the health conditions humans might experience during space travel beyond Earth's magnetic field over longer periods, a UCL-led team of researchers from over 40 institutions across five continents conducted a range of experiments, including biomolecular, physiological, and anatomical assessments using data and samples from 20 study cohorts. They also performed 11 space simulations involving mice and rats, seven of which involved mice exposed to simulated GCR doses equivalent to 1.5-year and 2.5-year Mars missions.

They found that both human and animal kidneys are "remodeled" in these conditions, with specific kidney tubules responsible for fine-tuning calcium and salt balance showing signs of shrinkage after less than a month in space. Microgravity, rather than GCR, is posited as the likely cause, with further research needed to determine if the interaction of microgravity and GCR can accelerate or worsen these structural changes.

With the problem now roughly outlined, the researchers are also considering possible solutions.

Shielding won't work, said Professor Stephen Walsh, senior author of the study from the London Tubular Centre, UCL Department of Renal Medicine, but it may be possible to develop technological or pharmaceutical measures to facilitate extended space travel as more is learned about renal biology.

"Any drugs developed for astronauts may also be beneficial here on Earth, for example by enabling cancer patients' kidneys to tolerate higher doses of radiotherapy, the kidneys being one of the limiting factors in this regard," he added.

Permalink to story:

 
Shielding won't work, said Professor Stephen Walsh, senior author of the study
This isn't correct. It's true that the thin aluminum shielding used currently on the ISS won't work (it actually increases damage due to secondary radiation) but other types of shielding can do so. A powerful magnetic field works, or even a meter or so of water will suffice.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe any of the Apollo astronauts died of kidney issues, and most lived into their 80s or older. Their trips were far outside the protection of the planetary magnetic field. Granted, they were not there for months, but if there were going to be issues from a Mars trip of planned mission duration, some of the Apollo astronauts would have likely shown some kind of complication.

I'll trade 90 days in a Starship for a lifetime commuting to work on a 40 mile round trip for 25 years as magnitudes safer.
 
I do not believe any of the Apollo astronauts died of kidney issues, and most lived into their 80s or older. Their trips were far outside the protection of the planetary magnetic field. Granted, they were not there for months, but if there were going to be issues from a Mars trip of planned mission duration, some of the Apollo astronauts would have likely shown some kind of complication.
The Apollo missions were 5 to 8 days long, not 1.5 years. And even then they didn't get off scot-free:

"...the number of deaths due to heart disease among the Apollo lunar astronauts is almost five times greater than that in non-flight astronauts, or astronauts who never flew missions in space, researchers from Florida State University found. Compared to astronauts who flew only in low Earth orbit (LEO), the heart risk among Apollo astronauts is four times higher. There were no differences between LEO and non-flight astronauts....

...“We’ve probably underestimated the impact of deep-space radiation on not just cardiovascular disease but health in general”, said lead author of the study""


 
The Apollo missions were 5 to 8 days long, not 1.5 years. And even then they didn't get off scot-free:

"...the number of deaths due to heart disease among the Apollo lunar astronauts is almost five times greater than that in non-flight astronauts, or astronauts who never flew missions in space, researchers from Florida State University found. Compared to astronauts who flew only in low Earth orbit (LEO), the heart risk among Apollo astronauts is four times higher. There were no differences between LEO and non-flight astronauts....

...“We’ve probably underestimated the impact of deep-space radiation on not just cardiovascular disease but health in general”, said lead author of the study""


Poor reporting.

Life expectancy for US males is 76.33 years. All but three of the moonwalkers died in their 80s or 90s. Conrad died at 69 in a motorcycle accident. Shepard died at 74 of leukemia. Irwin died at 61 of multiple heart attacks after exercise, the arrhythmia was documented by NASA before he flew.

In a group of 12 military men, those results are better than average - no lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver which is common in elderly military veterans.

Lastly, 1.5 years for mice and rats, not humans. My final point stands.
 
Poor reporting.
The reporting is accurate for what the study itself reports.

"...Of the 24 Apollo astronauts who flew around the moon on nine missions, eight have died. ....43 percent died from cardiovascular disease. Other causes of death included cancer (29 percent) and accidents (14 percent)..."

The study didn't just find a statistical correlation, but noted the permanent effects of radiation on vascular health.

Shepard died at 74 of leukemia. Irwin died at 61 of multiple heart attacks after exercise, tarrhythmia was documented by NASA before he flew.
Leukemia is one of the most common cancers resulting from radiation exposure. And Irwin's arrythmia was NOT "documented before he flew". It was first discovered during his mini heart attack on Apollo 15. Doctors at the time attributed it to possibly being "a previously undetected heart condition" (see NYT link below). But now we know that many astronauts quickly develop arrythmias during spaceflight. See Wiki link.




In a group of 12 military men, those results are better than average - no lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver which is common in elderly military veterans.
Oops! Astronauts don't tend to smoke or drink -- the primary cause of lung cancer and cirrhosis. A far better comparison is astronauts who flew in deep space (where the radiation is) vs. those astronauts who never left low-earth orbit. The study compared the two groups, and found the astronauts exposed to deep-space radiation fared far worse than the astronauts who did not. QED.
 
This article is nothing but an exercise in gaslighting. It quotes a professor claiming that shielding won't work, presumably against radiation, which is patently false, and also notes that the changes to kidneys are most likely due to the lack of gravity during space flight. The lack of gravity is easily addressed as is the problem with shielding, and until there are more studies showing a direct link to GCR, then this article should have remained unwritten. Pure click-bait gaslighting.
 
Shielding comes at cost of weight. Weight is extremely expensive for space travel

A moonbase makes much more sense than what has a incredibly good ( bad?? ) chance of a one way trip.

This is solely a vanity project. makes much more sense for Elon to send his Optimus prime robots, no oxygen needed for breathing , no food to be eaten, no kidneys

Look up kidney damage, very hard at moment to reverse , Enjoy your no oxalate , low potassium diet for the rest of your life.

If you can't establish a base on the moon, then no hope on Mars

Except for experiments on full live humans, what experiments can you not do on Mars with just robots/machines ??

Does Elon actually want a lander on Mars and a take off , or just a few circuits and head for home ??

To be fair NASA itself does some Vanity projects to garner attention , when money spend better elsewhere

Be more exciting to make a permanent space ship than can cruise the solar system and return to repair, take on new crew supplies , than just we travelled a long time and quickly returned
 
Shielding comes at cost of weight. Weight is extremely expensive for space travel

A moonbase makes much more sense than what has a incredibly good ( bad?? ) chance of a one way trip.

This is solely a vanity project. makes much more sense for Elon to send his Optimus prime robots, no oxygen needed for breathing , no food to be eaten, no kidneys

Look up kidney damage, very hard at moment to reverse , Enjoy your no oxalate , low potassium diet for the rest of your life.

If you can't establish a base on the moon, then no hope on Mars

Except for experiments on full live humans, what experiments can you not do on Mars with just robots/machines ??

Does Elon actually want a lander on Mars and a take off , or just a few circuits and head for home ??

To be fair NASA itself does some Vanity projects to garner attention , when money spend better elsewhere

Be more exciting to make a permanent space ship than can cruise the solar system and return to repair, take on new crew supplies , than just we travelled a long time and quickly returned
You're very good at stating the obvious. Going to the moon was a political and a vanity project so what's your point? That it's OK for govts. to have vanity projects but not private citizens? As for the extra weight for shielding, yeah, another statement made by Captain Obvious. You act like Musk would be spending YOUR money instead of his OWN. As for the expense, that's for Mr. Musk to worry about unless you're his accountant.
 
Last edited:
I'm almost done reading Ben Bova's epic RED/GREEN/BLUE Mars trilogy and can't wait to get off this crap planet and set up camp on our red cousin.
I believe that's Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy.

And personally, though for emotional reasons I'd prefer a trip to Mars, I believe the viability and economic benefits of a permanent colony on the moon far outweigh Mars. Though after a century or two later, the situation would likely be reversed.

Shielding comes at cost of weight.
Not magnetic shielding. And if you're using drinking water / reaction mass for shielding, then it's essentially free anyway.
 
Last edited:
I'm almost done reading Ben Bova's epic RED/GREEN/BLUE Mars trilogy and can't wait to get off this crap planet and set up camp on our red cousin.
OMG they are one of my favourite Trilogy's... Kim Stanley Robinson I believe is the author!
 
I've said this before, there's a reasonably easy solution.

Find an asteroid and nudge it towards a moon orbit. As it closes in on the moon have a space craft rendezvous with it and start altering it's trajectory so that it eventually ends up in orbit. All this would be done using orbital mechanics something we mastered in the 60s. Of course depending on the speed of the asteroid this will take years, maybe decades to do.

Once the asteroid is in orbit, start mining it for both resources to be converted into propulsion fuel, and to create a living section deep in the asteroid's interior. This could take many forms, Even a ring that would provide higher artificial gravity as it revolves. Lastly the craft being an asteroid would not only work fine since it doesn't need to deal with any atmosphere, and would actually make a perfect base for exploring the surface of Mars as it sits in a orbit around the planet.
 
"Humans who travel to Mars"? I wasn't aware that humans are already travelling to Mars.
 
Back