When humans eventually travel to Mars and beyond, they'll have plenty to worry about along with the discomforts of eating freeze-dried food and drinking their own urine. A new report says they will probably be really sick, to boot -- from flare-ups of E. coli, chicken pox or staph infections.
A host of microscopic stowaways could make interplanetary voyagers sick, especially because human immune systems are compromised in space, and because bacteria seem to thrive in micro- or zero-gravity environments.
E. coli, staphylococcus, and salmonella are among common bacteria that grow faster in space than on Earth, according to a report published in the Nov. 1 issue of the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. Latent viruses are more likely to reawaken in space, too, maybe due to the stress of space travel. Whatever the reason, they could all spell misery and even danger for astronauts traveling to the moon or Mars.
"The weakening of the immune system associated with spaceflight is an area that should be considered more before we undertake prolonged space voyages," write co-authors Nathan Gueguinou, Cecile Huin-Schohn and their colleagues at Nancy-University in France and the University of Luxembourg.
The authors review more than 150 studies dating to the Apollo era, showing humans' immune systems are compromised even during short space missions. What's worse, bacteria grow faster in space, for reasons that are not completely understood. To top it off, bacteria are more virulent and antibiotics don't work as well in space, so higher concentrations are needed to thwart infection.
"Even after we figure out a way to cover these distances in a reasonable amount of time, we still need to figure out how astronauts are going to overcome disease and sickness," said Jean-Pol Frippiat, one of the co-authors from Nancy-University, in a press release.
NASA has known since Apollo that astronauts' immune systems don't function well in space. Take the body's first line of defense, T-cells -- in space, they don't multiply properly, they neither move nor signal each other effectively, and there are fewer than there should be, according to studies that date from the 1970s. NASA scientists have been trying to figure out why.
In 2003, researchers at Johnson Space Center undertook the first-ever comprehensive study of astronaut immune systems and of viruses. But the study took place on STS-107, the shuttle Columbia's final flight. NASA gathered some data during the flight, but all was lost on reentry.
Later studies showed certain viruses are likely to reactivate in space, including the varicella zoster virus, which is responsible for chicken pox, and the Epstein-Barr virus, which causes mononucleosis. About 95 percent of Americans carry Epstein-Barr, according to the CDC; if it reactivates in space, NASA could have some miserable astronauts on its hands. NASA has diet and exercise regimens designed to bolster astronauts' weakened immune systems, and the study authors also recommend taking a mushroom-based immune booster drug, among other therapies.
But despite those efforts, astronauts will probably get sick when leaving Earth for prolonged periods, said the journal's editor, Luis Montaner.
"Unfortunately, because spacecraft technology is way ahead of our understanding of how to maintain human health, disease-free survival after reaching Mars or establishing a colony on the Moon may be problematic," he said.
Duane Pierson, lead microbiologist for crew health and environmental safety at Johnson Space Center in Houston, said although astronauts’ immune systems change even on short flights, they usually don’t get sick.
“For most of us, a little downturn in immunity doesn’t really increase your odds of getting sick," he said. "The crew are in excellent health, exquisite physical health, and illnesses are not very common and are usually very mild. But admittedly, these are shorter term flights. What happens when we go to Mars? Well, we don't know.”
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
They won't be drinking their own urine, it's been recycled into water, please stop propagating these misconceptions.
Oh, well this is convenient.
Did you ever think about sending a very smart doctor along on those long flights with a large quantity of anti drugs and the knowledge of how to combat spaceage diseases?
Colonization requires 3 things (1) constant resupply for many years, (2) disease, and (3) loss of life.
Look at every historic case - Columbus, Jamestown, Plymoth - they all came with disease and loss of life. Dysentary alone almost wiped out both Jamestown and Plymoth. All three depended on the resources of traditional colonist (those whice expand from settlements across geography, rather than across seas).
If we send people to Mars, we should realize that we are most liking sending them all to their deaths. In and of itself, that would not even dent voluntary recruitment.
I know lets mutate the germs let them loose on earth and let people grow immune to it. Unless the germs will kill us all...
Good. I hope space travlers don't make it to mars or anywhere. Science has destroyed our planet so of course we need science to destroy other planets.
Valeri Polyakov was in space for 437 days and he survived just fine. So please quit this unethical enticement of unfounded fears. People get sick that's part of the package called life but it's not going to kill everyone going to mars. How is going to mars gonna be worse than being locked up in mir for more than a year. So please stop scarring the stupid people.
boka, colonizing another planet may be the only hope for life on this planet (thats all life not just people) to survive the planet destroying astronomical events that will surely befall us one day even if millenia from now. Your pessimistic view serves to say we screwed this planet up some (though not irreversibly yet) so lets just let it all die. Oakspar77777 don't forget "mysteriously vanishing" thats been a part of all great exploration endeavors as well. I.E. the lost colony of roanoke, amelia earhart and many missing ships in the exploration of the seas.
I think it is worth pointing out that studies on people in space are, well limited seeing as how there have not been many people in space. Somehow I doubt that scientis are putting out this information due to the fact that it is not scientific, more likely a reporters scued "facts".
For one, if any of this is true, then what would the harm be (Oakspar77777) in trying to avoid repeating history? No harm comes from trying. Only knowledge.
On another note entirely, just send a few million people into space to clear off Earth a little and the ones that survive can continue our evolution.
[jesting of course]
Although I see the reason for colonization, I say it cant be done
why?
1) How do expect to get 1 mil or even 100k people into space, not even mars, just to get them in orbit?!!
2) the point is to depopulate earth, as I have said it is literally immpossible to transport large population unless u are obssesed with Robert Heinleins "Tunnel Through The Sky"
3) WHAT IF we could transport enough ppl there for colonization, Mars is barren an how much hydroponic equip would be nessary to support 100k ppl?! The earth would be always in debt to such colony with little promise of profit ie. iron ore, metals not worth the expense.
The cheaper alternative, which I officialy propose:
Build solid single building complexes to house millions at once, not just geting taller, but digging into the earths crust where yet untapped treasure troves of natural resourses. Theres PLENTY of space here on earth, we hanvt used even 10% of just the SURFACE AREA of the planet.
I can see it now, social classes, the rich people live in tall personal spires at the tops of the complexes with panoramic windows on half a dozen floors. The poor people live the the bottom, where most of the new construction is going on, mining, refinement and all the crude jobs. The middle lower layer is for hydroponics, then its the run of the mill small-medium bussines, then the rich banks and big bussineses on the upper floors. With the nuke plants some 50 miles away and carrying power through gigantic supercooled powerlines.
nice ideas