Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / August 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

astronauts and common cold

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
neo - 15 Aug 2007 09:00 GMT
In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
supply of pure oxygen.

I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in
nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold.

As there is no hydrogen in space station, astronauts should not catch
common cold.

If there is no case, you can always say that there are no common cold
virus in space hence astronauts do not catch common cold.

So tell them to carry so called common cold viruses in space. They
will not catch common cold.

Because common cold is not viral infection.
James R. Jones - 15 Aug 2007 13:06 GMT
> In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Because common cold is not viral infection.

Hmmm you seem to forget the Wally Shirra that had a cold while on one of
the Apollo missions.  If you hydrogen and chlorine theory held true I
would have had a cold continuously for several years as I worked around
HCL(Hydrochloric Acid) daily. The medical profession say it is a virus
that causes a cold, I think I will go along with their opinion rather
than this half cooked scheme.

Signature

Our website is http://myweb.cableone.net/okieman7

neo - 15 Aug 2007 18:36 GMT
> > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> that causes a cold, I think I will go along with their opinion rather
> than this half cooked scheme.

Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed
to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold
viruses?

As I am typing this, it just occured to me whether our ancestors,
monkeys and chimpanzy catch common cold. They must because almost all
DNA of human matches with chimpanzy.

I am going to google.
Mike Combs - 15 Aug 2007 18:58 GMT
> Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed
> to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold
> viruses?

Not really.  How often do humans die from the common cold?  How many have
been rendered unable to reproduce by the common cold?

Remember, evolution only works on issues related to reproduction, or issues
of survival only in as much as they directly impact reproduction.

Evolution has no mechanism for providing what an individual might want or
desire.

Signature

Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
                                                    Aragorn

bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu - 15 Aug 2007 19:25 GMT
>Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed
>to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold
>viruses?

Not at all.  Our immune system copes with the hundreds of viruses
that can cause the common cold quite well.  The common cold is a
trivial and transient disease, and unlikely to affect the number
of offspring a person has, which is all evolution is "interested in".

Note that until recently most humans lived in small scattered groups,
so probably never contacted more than a few different strains of
cold viruses in a lifetime.  Even after agriculture became widespread
a few thousand years ago, most people traveled very little, so still
didn't have exposure to very many different strains in their whole lives.

Even now, with massive worldwide travel, most adults have been exposed
to and developed immunity to so many cold viruses by the time they reach
30 or so that they seldom have more than one cold per year, if that. So
the immune system copes well not only under the conditions it developed
under, but under orders of magnitude greater load.  Sounds good to me.
neo - 15 Aug 2007 19:32 GMT
> > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> I am going to google.

So chimpanzee develope complete immunity to common cold viruses by age
of 2 and even in young chimpanzee symtoms disappear quickly.

http://www.releasechimps.org/harm-suffering/research-current/infectious-diseases
/use-of-chimpanzees-to-study-respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv/


.
So humans have also immunity to such viruses. It is our modern day
food, salt responsible for common cold.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/5d9b136f0a16ff92

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/74ce616209771006

.
Don't you people have ability to think that scientists are looking in
completely different direction? Why it is difficult to find cure on
common cold but easy to send man on moon?
neo - 15 Aug 2007 19:32 GMT
> > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> I am going to google.

So chimpanzee develope complete immunity to common cold viruses by age
of 2 and even in young chimpanzee symtoms disappear quickly.

http://www.releasechimps.org/harm-suffering/research-current/infectious-diseases
/use-of-chimpanzees-to-study-respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv/


.
So humans have also immunity to such viruses. It is our modern day
food, salt responsible for common cold.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/5d9b136f0a16ff92

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/74ce616209771006

.
Don't you people have ability to think that scientists are looking in
completely different direction? Why it is difficult to find cure on
common cold but easy to send man on moon?
Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 21:08 GMT
> Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed
> to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold
> viruses?

It would be, if the viruses were not also evolving to get around our
protections.

Signature

"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via:  <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>

Paul F. Dietz - 16 Aug 2007 02:43 GMT
> Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed
> to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold
> viruses?

No, because the viruses are also evolving (and they reproduce a lot faster
than we do).  It's an arms race.

Why are you surprised about the common cold, btw, and not all other viral
infections?  Your reasoning would apply to them as well.

   Paul
Bob - 16 Aug 2007 04:01 GMT
>Isn't it surprising that evolution spanning millions of years failed
>to develope immune system in human body to protect from common cold
>viruses?

As I understand it, our immune system does rather well against the
cold viruses. We get a  cold, with only minor consequneces, and are
immune to that virus for a lifetime. The problem is that there are a
couple hundred other viruses out there to infect us.

bob
Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 15:29 GMT
> In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
> supply of pure oxygen.

You're wrong.

> I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in
> nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold.

I think you're a nut (not to put too fine a point on it).

Signature

"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via:  <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>

neo - 15 Aug 2007 19:41 GMT
> > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I think you're a nut (not to put too fine a point on it).

Calling nut does not work in science. We go by logic, observation and
experimental proof.

Hydrogen reacts voilently with chlorine in light.
When we get feeling of sneezing we directly look at sun.

Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?

Science, not flaming.
Rand Simberg - 15 Aug 2007 19:57 GMT
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:41:34 -0000, in a place far, far away, neo
<abhijeet@operamail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

>> > I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in
>> > nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Hydrogen reacts voilently with chlorine in light.
>When we get feeling of sneezing we directly look at sun.

No, we don't.

>Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?

"We" don't.

>Science, not flaming.

No, nuttiness, not science.
Rick Jones - 15 Aug 2007 21:15 GMT
> >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?
> "We" don't.

Indeed, although some of "us" do :) Those with, IIRC a recessive gene
which is involved somehow in the link between stepping into/looking
towards bright light and sneezing.

rick jones
Signature

oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 21:17 GMT
> >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?
>
> "We" don't.

I do (well, I don't sneeze violently, but I do feel the urge).  But
photic sneezing has nothing to do with the rest of the nuttiness that
"neo" has been spouting.

Signature

"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via:  <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>

Rand Simberg - 15 Aug 2007 21:51 GMT
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:38 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout <joe@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

>> >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?
>>
>> "We" don't.
>
>I do (well, I don't sneeze violently, but I do feel the urge).

But I'll bet you sneez voilently.  C'mon, admit it...

Anyway, "we" don't.  I certainly never have.

>But photic sneezing has nothing to do with the rest of the nuttiness that
>"neo" has been spouting.

Agreed.
Jonathan - 16 Aug 2007 01:30 GMT
> > >Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> photic sneezing has nothing to do with the rest of the nuttiness that
> "neo" has been spouting.

What amazes me about sneezing is if done in public someone
will...always say God Bless You. I mean every single time
without exception. And I bet no one really knows why
including me. It's as if we're born with the habit.

I find that just astonishing.

So I looked it up and supposedly some of these stories
account for the habit. Stories such as......

"In the Netherlands a person who sneezes is believed thereby to
place himself in the power of a witch, unless some one invokes
a divine blessing; and such notions afford a plausible explanation
of one theory of the origin of this custom."

So, too, in Ireland the sneezer is greeted with fervent benedictions,
such as, "The blessing of God and the holy Mary be upon you!"
for such invocations are thought to counteract the machinations
of evil-disposed fairies.

According to a well-known myth of classical antiquity, Prometheus
formed of clay the model of a man, and desiring to animate the lifeless
figure, was borne to heaven by the Goddess Minerva, where he filled
a reed with celestial fire stolen from a wheel of the Sun's chariot.
Returning then to earth, he applied the magical reed to the nostrils
of the image, which thereupon became a living man, and began
its existence by sneezing. Prometheus, delighted with his
success, uttered a fervent wish for the welfare of his newly
formed creature

The Portuguese traveler, Godinho, wrote that whenever the emperor
of Monomotapa sneezed, acclamations were universal throughout
his realm; and in Guinea in the last century, whenever a person
of rank sneezed, every one present knelt down, clapped their hands,
and wished him every blessing. The courtiers of the king of Sennaar
in Nubia are wont on the occasion of a royal sneeze to turn their
backs on their sovereign while vigorously slapping the right hip.
Among the Zulu tribes, sneezing is viewed as a favorable symptom
in a sick person, and the natives are accustomed to return thanks
after it. In Madagascar, when a child sneezes, its mother invokes
the divine blessing, conformably to European usage; and in
Persia the sneezer is the recipient of congratulations and
good wishes.

The Italian historian, Carlo Sigonio, voices this belief in his
statement that the practice began in the sixth century, during
the pontificate of Gregory the Great. At this period a virulent
pestilence raged in Italy, which proved fatal to those who sneezed.
The Pope, therefore, ordered prayers to be said against it,
accompanied by certain signs of the cross. And the people
were wont also to say to those who sneezed, "God help ye!"
a revival of a custom dating back to prehistoric times."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/mhs/mhs47.htm
Joe Strout - 15 Aug 2007 21:11 GMT
> > > In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> > > think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Calling nut does not work in science. We go by logic, observation and
> experimental proof.

Scientists do, but I think you're misusing the word "we" here.

> Why do we sneez voilently when we look at sun?

I assume you mean "sneeze," and this is the photic sneeze reflex.  Try a
Google search; it's been pretty well studied by real scientists.

Signature

"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via:  <http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/>

Pat Flannery - 16 Aug 2007 02:21 GMT
>> Calling nut does not work in science. We go by logic, observation and
>> experimental proof.
>>    
>
> Scientists do, but I think you're misusing the word "we" here.
>  

All your colds are belong to us. :-)

Pat
Henry Spencer - 15 Aug 2007 15:33 GMT
>In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
>think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
>supply of pure oxygen.

Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same
atmosphere as here on Earth:  21% oxygen, almost all the rest nitrogen, at
circa 14.7psi.  Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen now.

Some of the trace ingredients are different, e.g. there is not much argon
(nearly 1% of Earth air) in the station air.

>I think hydrogen ions in air on earth reacts with chloride ions in
>nasal airway resulting in sneezing and common cold.

The amount of free hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is tiny -- about half a
part per million -- and it comes from the breakup of water vapor by
various means.  There is just as much water vapor in the shuttle and
station air as in Earth's air.

>As there is no hydrogen in space station, astronauts should not catch
>common cold.

Minor infections, including colds, actually appear to be more common in
space than on the ground.  Weightlessness causes changes in the immune
system -- just how that happens is unknown -- and that may be part of it,
and more small airborne debris (since it doesn't settle due to gravity)
may also be a factor.

>Because common cold is not viral infection.

And what price are you asking for the Brooklyn Bridge?
Signature

spsystems.net is temporarily off the air;               |   Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead.               | henry@spsystems.net

Mike Combs - 15 Aug 2007 18:30 GMT
> Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same
> atmosphere as here on Earth:  21% oxygen, almost all the rest nitrogen, at
> circa 14.7psi.  Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen now.

Do you happen to know what Mir used to use?  I tried to look this up once
and couldn't find anything on the subject.

I know that Skylab had an atmosphere with reduced pressure and enhanced O2
percentage.  I was wondering if that was our only experience in such
atmospheres.

Signature

Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
                                                    Aragorn

Brian Lawrence - 16 Aug 2007 00:27 GMT
> Do you happen to know what Mir used to use?  I tried to look this up once and
> couldn't find anything on the subject.

Mir and previous Soviet/Russian manned craft also used an oxygen/nitrogen
atmosphere. If Mir had been different to the normal space shuttle atmosphere
the Shuttle-Mir missions would have needed an airlock system similar to the
Apollo-Soyuz Docking Module. The Progress craft resupplied Mir with both
O2 & N2 and when docked Mir took onboard excess O2 & N2 from the shuttle.

Not sure about pressure.

Signature

Brian

Henry Spencer - 16 Aug 2007 02:50 GMT
>> Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same
>> atmosphere as here on Earth:  21% oxygen, almost all the rest nitrogen, at
>> circa 14.7psi.  Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen now.
>
>Do you happen to know what Mir used to use?  I tried to look this up once
>and couldn't find anything on the subject.

The Soviets/Russians used Earth-surface air composition and pressure from
the start.  (Again, with the exception of spacesuits.)

>I know that Skylab had an atmosphere with reduced pressure and enhanced O2
>percentage.  I was wondering if that was our only experience in such
>atmospheres.

I think it's the only actually-flown vehicle that used such a mix as its
normal operating atmosphere.

The shuttle sometimes runs at *somewhat* lower pressure and *somewhat*
higher oxygen content when a spacewalk is imminent, to reduce the amount
of prebreathing needed, but that is considered an abnormal case.

And the post-fire Apollo capsule, while on the ground, used an oxygen-rich
but not pure-oxygen atmosphere at 14.7psi in the cabin, to limit fire
hazards while avoiding other problems.  (The crew, in their suits, was
still breathing pure oxygen, and the cabin bled down to low-pressure pure
oxygen during ascent.)

Otherwise, it's all been 14.7psi of roughly-normal air, or 5psi of pure
oxygen.
Signature

spsystems.net is temporarily off the air;               |   Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead.               | henry@spsystems.net

Mike Combs - 16 Aug 2007 18:21 GMT
> I think it's the only actually-flown vehicle that used such a mix as its
> normal operating atmosphere.

Thanks for the info.

Signature

Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
                                                    Aragorn

Chris Jones - 16 Aug 2007 20:43 GMT
> In article <f9vd8b$73l$1@home.itg.ti.com>,

[...]

> The shuttle sometimes runs at *somewhat* lower pressure and *somewhat*
> higher oxygen content when a spacewalk is imminent, to reduce the amount
> of prebreathing needed, but that is considered an abnormal case.

As does the US ISS airlock, for the same reason.  This is why you'll
hear about crewmembers with an upcoming EVA "camping-out" in the
airlock.

I believe this camping out is not necessary for EVAs in Russian suits,
as they run at a higher pressure than US suits (still with pure oxygen
as the breathing gas), which removes the need for a lengthy
pre-breathing cycle at the cost of a stiffer suit, somewhat harder to
use.
Fred J. McCall - 17 Aug 2007 02:49 GMT
:I believe this camping out is not necessary for EVAs in Russian suits,
:as they run at a higher pressure than US suits (still with pure oxygen
:as the breathing gas), which removes the need for a lengthy
:pre-breathing cycle at the cost of a stiffer suit, somewhat harder to
:use.

I'm curious how much higher they go, since pure oxygen at higher
pressures is not particularly healthy for you.

Signature

"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
   live in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

Chris Jones - 17 Aug 2007 18:59 GMT
> :I believe this camping out is not necessary for EVAs in Russian suits,
> :as they run at a higher pressure than US suits (still with pure oxygen
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I'm curious how much higher they go, since pure oxygen at higher
> pressures is not particularly healthy for you.

392 hPa, about 5.69 psi.  Above the sea-level partial pressure of O2,
but still safe.
Rick Jones - 15 Aug 2007 18:48 GMT
In sci.space.history Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> wrote:
> Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same
> atmosphere as here on Earth: 21% oxygen, almost all the rest
> nitrogen, at circa 14.7psi.  Only the spacesuits use pure oxygen
> now.

Do they actually carry nitrogen replenishment tanks on the Shuttle?
Or is it "tight enough" that it isn't necessary?

rick jones
Signature

portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Jeff Findley - 15 Aug 2007 19:32 GMT
> In sci.space.history Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> wrote:
>> Uh, no, both the shuttle and the station use approximately the same
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Do they actually carry nitrogen replenishment tanks on the Shuttle?
> Or is it "tight enough" that it isn't necessary?

Shuttle and ISS both have N2 tanks.  The shuttle leaks a bit while in orbit,
plus every time you open the airlock, you lose some O2 and N2.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_eclss.html#sts_eclss

Search for "nitrogen" on the above page.

Jeff
Signature

   "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
    little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
    safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Henry Spencer - 16 Aug 2007 02:55 GMT
>Do they actually carry nitrogen replenishment tanks on the Shuttle?
>Or is it "tight enough" that it isn't necessary?

Yes, the orbiter does have nitrogen tanks.  It's not particularly "tight";
in fact, US spacecraft designers in general have not tried hard to control
leakage (as witness considerable variation in leak rates between different
vehicles of the same design), so they have generally had relatively high
leak rates and have relied on having plenty of replenishment gas.

("Tight" vehicles *can* be built -- Skylab's Multiple Docking Adapter had
a leak rate orders of magnitude lower than the Apollo spacecraft, despite
being rather larger -- but first the engineers must care.)
Signature

spsystems.net is temporarily off the air;               |   Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead.               | henry@spsystems.net

Chris Jones - 16 Aug 2007 20:45 GMT
[...]

> ("Tight" vehicles *can* be built -- Skylab's Multiple Docking Adapter had
> a leak rate orders of magnitude lower than the Apollo spacecraft, despite
> being rather larger -- but first the engineers must care.)

Note that Soviet/Russian spacecraft are much tighter; leakage is
practically non-existent under normal circumstances.  This was always
the case, though they became practically fanatical about it after Soyuz
11.
Pat Flannery - 17 Aug 2007 01:19 GMT
> Note that Soviet/Russian spacecraft are much tighter; leakage is
> practically non-existent under normal circumstances.  This was always
> the case, though they became practically fanatical about it after Soyuz
> 11.
>  

Back during Voskhod they had no choice; there wasn't enough extra air
aboard to repressurize the spacecraft if it sprung a leak. Three guys
without pressure suits in a spacecraft that cannot be allowed to leak is
not a safe idea, and that was one of the arguments against continuing
the Voskhod program.
That's also why the airlock on Voskhod 2 had gas storage stanks mounted
on its exterior - it pressurized itself before Leonov crawled into it
from the cabin, and did it again after he had returned to it out from
his EVA and sealed the external hatch before opening the hatch into the
capsule's interior.
A lot of their concern with leak-proof spacecraft probably comes from
the cooling systems for their tube-driven electronics that tended to
stow them in pressurized containers with fans that circulated the gas
for cooling by forced convection.
Failures of pressurization in the electronic cooling containers probably
accounted for some early Soviet planetary probes going silent a few
weeks after launch.

Launch
Chris Jones - 17 Aug 2007 19:14 GMT
> > Note that Soviet/Russian spacecraft are much tighter; leakage is
> > practically non-existent under normal circumstances.  This was always
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> pressurized containers with fans that circulated the gas for cooling by forced
> convection.

One of the stories circulated about Voskhod 2 is that it actually did
have a leak after the airlock was jettisoned, and the attempts to keep
the pressure up led to an O2 rich cabin environment, which caused some
concern about the potential for electronic arcing causing a fire.
robert casey - 17 Aug 2007 01:09 GMT
> Yes, the orbiter does have nitrogen tanks.  It's not particularly "tight";
> in fact, US spacecraft designers in general have not tried hard to control
> leakage (as witness considerable variation in leak rates between different
> vehicles of the same design), so they have generally had relatively high
> leak rates and have relied on having plenty of replenishment gas.

Maybe a reason to allow such leakage was to reduce the amount of traces
from electronic circuit boards and other such equipment outgasses.
Stuff that the filter systems aboard the craft may not be able to deal
with.  Also if baked beans are on the menu...  :D
Pat Flannery - 17 Aug 2007 19:38 GMT
> Maybe a reason to allow such leakage was to reduce the amount of
> traces from electronic circuit boards and other such equipment
> outgasses. Stuff that the filter systems aboard the craft may not be
> able to deal with.  Also if baked beans are on the menu...  :D

I was amazed to find that one of the NASA ISS dinners was pizza, which
sounds like trouble in that regard.
The Russian space menu seems awfully bland, a lot of berries and nuts
combined with some meat and black bread, but it does sound like
something a bear would eat. :-)

Pat
Jeff Findley - 15 Aug 2007 16:36 GMT
> In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
> supply of pure oxygen.

Actually, on the shuttle, the "air supply" is O2 and N2 at sea level mix and
pressure.  CO2 scrubbers keep CO2, generated by the astronauts, at low
levels.  As far as I know, the same is true for ISS and Soyuz.

Jeff
Signature

   "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
    little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
    safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Scott Hedrick - 15 Aug 2007 17:20 GMT
> As there is no hydrogen in space station, astronauts should not catch
> common cold.

There is hydrogen in the space station, though not as much as in older
spacecraft. People fart, and since the total volume of air in ISS is less
than Earth, the portion of hydrogen is greater. In older spacecraft it was
worse, because the lower pressure encouraged more farting. The fuel cells
also sometimes added hydrogen to the water.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation - 15 Aug 2007 17:41 GMT
> In earth atmosphere many gases are present alongwith oxygen. But I
> think, in space shuttle or international space station, there is
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Because common cold is not viral infection.

Here is some information on the current tests being done on STS-118
examining the how bacteria grow in space which "will give insight on
what types of bacterial infections may occur during long duration
space missions"

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/182728main_STS-118_Press_Kit.pdf
STS-118 press kit Page 69
Biological Science Investigations
"Streptococcus pneumoniae Gene Expression and Virulence Potential in
the Space Environment (SPEGIS) will examine the behavior and growth of
bacteria in microgravity. The data collected will give insight on what
types of bacterial infections may occur during long duration space
missions and the risks to crew members."

The Experiments Link
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/SPEGIS.html#description
"Streptococcus pneumoniae Expression of Genes in Space (SPEGIS)
08.14.2007
Brief Summary
Streptococcus pneumoniae Expression of Gene in Space (SPEGIS) will
examine the behavior and growth of bacteria in microgravity and
investigate the effects of the space environment on the gene
expression, protein production, and virulence of the bacteria
Streptococcus pneumoniae. The data collected will also provide insight
on what types of bacterial infections may occur during long-duration
space missions and the risks to crew members....
Experiment/Payload Description
Research Summary
During spaceflight, as well as on Earth, humans risk infection that is
caused by bacteria.
This investigation will examine gene and protein expression of
Streptococcus pneumoniae (a bacteria that is normally found living in
the human body) are effected by microgravity.
Data from SPEGIS is anticipated to provide information on the threat
of opportunistic pathogens in the space environment, which will assist
in the development of diagnostic tools to monitor the atmosphere and
surfaces (air, soil, and food) for the presence of these microbes.
Description
The Streptococcus pneumoniae Expression of Genes in Space (SPEGIS)
will investigate S. pneumoniae gene expression and protein production
in the space environment. S. pneumoniae is an important human pathogen
and the leading cause of bacterial pneumonia (inflammation of the
lungs with congestion), meningitis (inflammation of the membrane
covering the brain and spinal cord), and otitis media (ear infection).
Importantly, this pathogen has been isolated previously from the crew
pre-flight and related bacteria are found in the spacecraft
environment. Experiments will be performed to identify and
characterize S. pneumoniae genes and proteins, which are
differentially expressed in response to the space environment and
compare microgravity-induced genes and proteins to those expressed
during post-flight animal infection.

This experimental approach will result in new information about a
significant human pathogen, add to our knowledge about the S.
pneumoniae pathogenic mechanism, and also provide basic information on
the bacterial model system of gene and protein expression in the space
environment.

S. pneumoniae is a respiratory microbe that is normally found in the
upper respiratory tract of approximately 40% of the healthy human
population. The identification of specific S. pneumoniae virulence
factors and cellular and molecular processes may aid scientists in
furthering the understanding of how this bacteria causes infection.
This data may aid in the design and development of new antimicrobial
drugs.

Pre-flight the S. pneumoniae cultures will be grown on the ground in a
laboratory environment and inoculated into Todd Hewitt Yeast extract
(THY) growth medium for the flight experiment. The bacterial cultures
will be loaded into the experiment containers approximately L-72 hours
and will be launched at 4 degrees C in the Microgravity Environment
Research Locker/INcubator (MERLIN)."
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.