Cancer - Expect it

C M Edwards · 2004-07-06 15:31:45

What if an astronaut on a Mars mission developed cancer during the mission?

Many types of cancer have a prognosis of six months to live if untreated. (That compares unfavorably to a two and a half year mission schedule.) Since the cumulative odds of a crewman developing cancer on missions with a crew of four is about one in twenty missions, this is an eventuality that might arise.

Should supplies and instruments for cancer treatment be included in mission mass budgets? Arguably not for every individual mission. But would it be logical to include these supplies at a central base?

clark · 2004-07-06 15:48:23

What if an astronaut on a Mars mission developed cancer during the mission?

You're faced with a choice: Carry on, and hope for the best. Or, scrub the mission with the first available transit window.

A lot of other problems could arise similar to Cancer, such as failing organs, or accidents which cause some damage.

Here is where things can get interesting... do you make the entire crew have similar blood types (in case of transfusion needs)? Do you remove the gallbladder and apendix's (one less thing to go wrong)? Do you do genetic screening and the like and remove any astronaut that might show a higher than average propensity for cancer or other similar diseases? Should the astronauts have compatable organ types to allow for kidney transplants?

What do you do if a crew member becomes injured to the point where they could not survive a transit back to earth? (G stress)

I suppose you could send most of the medical supplies ahead of time as "cargo"- but then, what about problems in transit?

Ian Flint · 2004-07-06 15:49:04

I think that would be a great idea. Because of its high radiation, Mars will probably become a leader in cancer research. Cancer treatments may be the export that will support Mars.

bolbuyk · 2004-07-07 06:32:56

I think unavoidable risks like cancer the best remedy is to shorten the mission: That's why I prefer the via-Venus design. The total time is less than 2 years. Most of the older designs do this mission.

The risks not only become less by shortening the mission, the expected time to handle troubles decreases also. So this is a kind of quadratic dependence of risks and duration.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-07 07:47:14

I think you can significantly reduce the risk of cancer on a H2M mission by doing alot of little things, like including a anti-oxidant suppliment in the crews daily diet, surrounding the crew cabin by their water tank to provide sheilding. Also by using NTRs or other type of advanced options we could be able to cut the transit times signficantly, prehaps 3 months out and 2 months back instead of six and five.

I however think that using a mission architecture that involves returning during the same conjunction window is a horrible idea, you end up with transit times 10 times longer then surface time, for a human mission I just don't think this makes alot of sense, I would infact like to see a stay over mission with crew elements staying over two launch windows once there were three or four habitats on the surface. Once your on mars and have the atmostphere over you radiation risks drop considerably, especially since on the surface with minimal equipment could berm regolith over the habitiats to provide additional sheilding.

cDelta · 2004-07-07 09:57:25

Clark, I think you make an interesting point regarding medical pre-screenings and preventative surgeries. Having an entire crew with the same blood type may seem like a good idea, but the question that arises is "where do we stop?" How stringent should the criteria be for a human crew to Mars? Given the state of medical technology and knowledge today, versus earlier periods of exploration in history, would it be unethical to not put in place some basic medial requirements?

You've definitely given us something to think about and although this is hardly the same thing as genetic modification, I can't help but be reminded of the movie Gattaca, in which a certain genetic profile was required for people who wished to travel in space.

~Eternal~ · 2004-07-07 10:11:41

Demron, lots and lots of Demron, but surely an kemo kit could be brought on board?

RobS · 2004-07-07 12:45:15

Note that cancer usually takes years to develop, so the radiation exposure of a Mars mission will create the cancer years later ON EARTH. A really thorough CAT scanning of people before they leave, including numerous invasive biopsies of anything suspicious, could reduce the risk of cancer in the first 12-18 months quite a bit. Cancer later in the mission would take long enough to develop so that a simple chemotherapy drug (if there is such a thing) may delay it enough to get someone home safely.

The risk of developing cancer in one's lifetime, as a result of a 26 month mission, according to Zubrin, is not too high; your risk of dying from cancer goes from 23 percent to 25 percent, I think. Cigarettes are far worse than that.

A more serious issue would be reproduction; radiation will decrease reproductive efficiency (i.e., cause problems that are difficult to pin down) and will damage both sperms and eggs. Astronauts planning to have families would be wise to store sperm and eggs on Earth before departure. If they are planning to have a family on Mars, bring the stored reproductive material in a lead-enclosed nitrogen-cooled vessel for possible later use on Mars.

-- RobS

clark · 2004-07-07 12:48:25

. Astronauts planning to have families would be wise to store sperm and eggs on Earth before departure.

Leave the "kids" at home. :laugh:

cDelta · 2004-07-07 12:49:46

Can you imagine it? "Daddy, are we there yet?" for six months. The horror!

Ian Flint · 2004-07-07 15:13:17

"You should have gone before we blasted off!!!"

HeloTeacher · 2004-07-11 06:01:33

Or, heaven forbid, one can accept greater than 0% risk and just get the bloody job done. Hmmmmm, isn't that how the last 10,000 years of human exploration was done?

Many of us work in isolated areas with minimal medical capabilities. Often for months at a time. Yes, there is usually an evacuation option (albeit with timelines of days to weeks) that can be called upon. People do die. We still go to work.

Why re-invent the risk-management wheel?

Grypd · 2004-07-11 06:13:17

We have to expect that there is a chance that we will have someone die

It is the risk that must be taken, The chances of cancer are about the same as of a total mission failure, with the loss of all crew. Saying that we can decrease the risk by using proper foods containg roughage and proper vitamins, Medication can be used to reduce risks but if someone gets inoperable cancer we cant help.

The British goverment has research to design a robot that can do operations it will be linked to a real surgeon and he can do operations at a distance, one of these will be sent so that injuries can be treated. We are more likely to have base injuries like broken bones than cancer but we can be prepared just in case

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-11 06:31:16

Hi HeloTeacher!
Unless I haven't been paying enough attention recently, I believe you've been away for a while.
Just thought I'd say it's good to see you back again.
:up:

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-11 06:46:34

Oh! And it's good to see your usual brand of plain good old-fashioned common sense once again, too!
Not that I want to belittle CM's legitimate concern about the effects of losing a crew member to cancer, but humanity's whole history has been one of risk taking. We're the most curious species this planet has ever produced and everybody knows what curiosity can do to you .. !
I agree that there are no guarantees for any of us and that living is a life-shortening experience.
If they can't find anybody else willing to take the risk ... Hell! ... they can call me any time they like. I'll go!

HeloTeacher · 2004-07-14 12:15:50

Hello shaun, thanks for that. Yes, I've been busy in the personal life and started a new job in Nigeria. Very busy.

Also, the internet access here is limited (and usually broken) and with 30 or more guys looking to use 3 terminals, one can't surf at will.

I also do not wish to minimize the concerns, but cannot stress enough that if we try to reduce the risks below what we see in daily life, we'll never get anything done.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-14 17:41:56

What about the impact of a loss of skills? In an optimised four person exploration crew, aren't they going to be rather screwed if they lose a quarter of their expertise?

What about landing and take-offs? If you need two crew and one spare for a safe take-off, then you're cutting it fine to go down to the surface.

Finally what about the psychology of the crew? In the past they've all died together. How would they cope with the loss when they're a few billion miles from the nearest human being, and thirty mm away from the lethal harshness of space?

It's all very well saying, people die, get on with it. And I agree to a large extent. But there are other trade offs to consider.

ANTIcarrot.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-07-15 00:06:57

What would you do with the corpse if someone died on the journey? My thoughts would be to eject them into space, but they'd have to design a ship capable of doing so. I would however think the risk of someone developing a fatal illness would be slim at first, those going would be physically fitter than the majority of people, and as part of the programme would have been subjected to regular medicals. But like HeloTeacher said, you can't remove all the risk, so every member of the crew should at least have a working knowledge of the other crews tasks. If possible the ship should be designed so that in a worst case scenario it can be flown by one person (though on a six month plus journey it would be hard going).

Graeme

Grypd · 2004-07-15 05:31:02

If we are going to worry about something it should not be cancer we have studied how to reduce the risks and exposures and have developed plans to reduce risks.

But i dont think we have studied in depth the health costs that mars will be. Mars is an Arid Dusty planet and therein lies the problem.

Martian dust or fines could well become at best a problem, at worst a serious medical concern. These small particles will find ways to get anywhere they can they cause hazard to the vehicles and machinery of any expedition sent to Mars. But, what health damage can they do, probably a lot. We may send our explorers to Mars and get them back with severe respiratory problems.

We can reduce contamination of the Habs etc but it will prove to be hard as the main source of removing contaminant has always been the use of showers. Which needless to say is a heavy water user. Should we get caught by a martian dust storm this will complicate measures as the air will be saturated by the worst type of dust the small sharp probably charged particles. Interesting thing here is the Moon has the same problem so if someone can design a good fix it might become standard equipment on all space flights

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-06 15:31:45

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#2 2004-07-06 15:48:23

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#3 2004-07-06 15:49:04

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#4 2004-07-07 06:32:56

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#5 2004-07-07 07:47:14

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#6 2004-07-07 09:57:25

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#7 2004-07-07 10:11:41

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#8 2004-07-07 12:45:15

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#9 2004-07-07 12:48:25

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#10 2004-07-07 12:49:46

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#11 2004-07-07 15:13:17

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#12 2004-07-11 06:01:33

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#13 2004-07-11 06:13:17

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#14 2004-07-11 06:31:16

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#15 2004-07-11 06:46:34

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#16 2004-07-14 12:15:50

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#17 2004-07-14 17:41:56

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#18 2004-07-15 00:06:57

Re: Cancer - Expect it

#19 2004-07-15 05:31:02

Re: Cancer - Expect it

Board footer