Beautiful story about China's work and dedication to giving new life to the Yangtze
River:
Friday, April 17, 2026
Lowering Prices
The price of Brent is back in the $80s per barrel, today.
Foreign ministers of European countries met in Paris. Below, an account of the situation
from Der Spiegel:
The translate to English function;
Message from Tehran
Iran opens Strait of Hormuz, US maintains blockade
The Strait of Hormuz is open again to merchant ships. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi announced this in response to the ceasefire in Lebanon. Crude oil prices and Donald Trump reacted immediately.
April 17, 2026, 3:09 PM
Persian Gulf (April 2024) Photo:Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto/Getty Images
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced on Twitter that Iran has lifted its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz until the end of the ceasefire in Lebanon . The ceasefire for Lebanon came into effect on Thursday evening and is scheduled to last ten days.
Araghchi further explained that all commercial ships would pass through on a coordinated route already announced by the Iranian Ports and Shipping Authority. Oil prices fell by more than eight percent following the announcement. A barrel (159 liters) of Brent crude for June delivery costs $91.11. At times, the price dipped below $90. A similarly sharp drop was also seen in the price of US crude . The price of WTI crude fell by more than nine percent to $85.90 per barrel.
The war with Iran and the de facto blockade of key trade routes from the oil-producing regions of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz had driven the price of Brent crude oil to nearly $120 per barrel at times in March. Before the start of the war with Iran, the price was around $70 per barrel.
And the stock market reacted immediately: The Dax significantly extended its gains and was 1.9 percent higher at 24,662 points seconds after the announcement.
Donald Trump initially responded with a brief "Thank you" on his platform Truth Social. Shortly afterward, the US president made it clear in capital letters that the American blockade of Iranian ports would continue until a final negotiated solution was reached.
Since the start of the US-Israeli attacks on February 28, Iran has effectively blockaded the strategically important Strait of Hormuz. Approximately one-fifth of the world's oil exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, drastically increasing energy prices in recent weeks. This afternoon in Paris, numerous heads of state and government discussed how the route could be secured militarily. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is also participating in the meeting. Merz has already expressed Germany's fundamental willingness to participate in such an operation under certain conditions.
czl/dpa/Reuters
* * *
Gemini ai:
War in Iran; was Canada a participant in the (largely virtual) Strait of Hormuz meeting held from Paris today? I know the US was pointedly not invited!!
Today's Paris Summit on the Strait of Hormuz is certainly a major pivot in the current crisis. While the French and British organizers have been selective with the guest list to maintain a "non-belligerent" focus, Canada did indeed participate in the meeting.
Canada joined approximately 50 other nations and international organizations via video link to support what is officially being called the Strait of Hormuz Maritime Freedom of Navigation Initiative.
Key Details of Today's Paris Meeting:
The Organizers: The summit was co-hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Participation: While leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian PM Giorgia Meloni attended in person at the Élysée Palace, Canada’s involvement was part of the large virtual contingent of "allied nations" seeking to stabilize global energy markets.
The "Non-Belligerent" Stance: You are correct that the United States was not invited, nor was Iran. The strategy behind this was to frame the initiative as a purely defensive, multilateral effort to protect commercial shipping, distinct from the ongoing U.S. naval blockade and the military strikes that began back in February.
The Mission: The focus was on planning a multinational force to secure the waterway "as soon as conditions allow," which would involve demining operations and coordinated naval escorts.
Current Status of the Strait
The timing of the meeting coincided with a significant breakthrough: Iran's Foreign Minister and President Trump both confirmed today that the Strait is "completely open" to commercial vessels for the duration of the current 10-day ceasefire. This news caused oil prices to tumble about 5% this morning, though the Paris group remains wary, insisting on a "permanent and unconditional" reopening rather than one tied to temporary truces.
It is a delicate diplomatic tightrope for Canada and the other "sidelined" nations to coordinate this without Washington, especially as military planners are set to meet in London next week to hammer out the logistics.
Thursday, April 16, 2026
Cosmology_News
New theory of gravity could change everything we know about the cosmos
I'm all for it: getting rid of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But Finsler geometry may not
quite do it...
Black_H
* * *
I've long been wondering how this is possible: two black holes circling around each other.
Black holes are singularities, and space is 3-D. No dance pattern between the two should have
priority. Indeed, they should merge... and they do!
Astrum on Black Holes:
Part 1
Gemini:
What refinements to black hole theory did Stephen Hawkins bring?
Stephen Hawking’s work fundamentally shifted the study of black holes from pure geometry and general relativity into the realm of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. His refinements proved that black holes are not truly "black" or eternal, but are dynamic, thermal objects.
1. Hawking Radiation: The End of Eternal Black Holes
Before Hawking, it was believed that nothing—not even light—could ever leave a black hole, meaning they would only ever grow. In 1974, Hawking applied quantum field theory to the curved space-time around a black hole and discovered that they must emit radiation.
This happens because "empty" space is filled with virtual particle pairs that constantly pop in and out of existence. Near an event horizon, one particle can fall in while the other escapes. To an outside observer, it looks like the black hole is emitting a particle and losing a tiny amount of mass.
The Refinement: Black holes have a temperature and will eventually evaporate completely over vast timescales.
2. The Area Theorem
In 1971, Hawking proposed the Area Theorem, which states that the total surface area of a black hole’s event horizon can never decrease. This held true even when two black holes merged; the new event horizon's area must be greater than or equal to the sum of the original two.
The Refinement: This provided a mathematical "one-way street" for black hole evolution, similar to how entropy always increases in a closed system. This theorem was famously confirmed observationally for the first time in 2021 using gravitational wave data from LIGO.
3. Black Hole Thermodynamics
Working with colleagues like Brandon Carter and James Bardeen, Hawking helped formulate the Four Laws of Black Hole Mechanics. These laws are direct analogs to the laws of thermodynamics:
Zeroth Law: The "surface gravity" is constant over the horizon of a stationary black hole (like temperature in thermal equilibrium).
First Law: Relates changes in mass to changes in area, angular momentum, and charge (analogous to energy conservation).
Second Law: The area of the horizon never decreases (analogous to the law of increasing entropy).
The Refinement: This turned black hole physics into a branch of heat and energy science, eventually leading to the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy formula, which suggests a black hole's "information" is stored on its 2D surface area rather than its 3D volume.
4. The Information Paradox
Perhaps Hawking's most famous "refinement" was actually a problem he created: the Information Paradox. If a black hole evaporates and disappears, what happens to the information (the specific quantum states) of the objects that fell in?
The Conflict: General relativity says the information is gone, but quantum mechanics says information can never be destroyed.
Hawking’s Later Evolution: Initially, Hawking argued information was lost. However, in his later years (and specifically in a 2016 paper on "Soft Hair"), he refined his stance, suggesting that information might be stored in low-energy excitations (soft hair) at the event horizon and could potentially escape as the black hole evaporates.
TerraF
Life is a web of related organisms evolving in an open environment over a very long timescale...
* * *
Copilot:
Explain the notion of 'terraforming' to me. Clearly, one cannot hope to replicate what was a long evolution with wildly different climatic conditions??
Terraforming is the idea of deliberately modifying another planet or moon so that it becomes more Earth‑like—warm enough, with a breathable atmosphere, liquid water, and conditions where humans (and eventually other Earth life) could live without spacesuits.
The concise takeaway: Terraforming is planetary‑scale environmental engineering, and while it’s a powerful concept in science fiction, every realistic scientific analysis shows that it is far beyond our current capabilities and may remain impossible for many worlds.
🌍 What “terraforming” actually means
Scientists usually break it into three layers:
Physical environment
Changing temperature
Adjusting atmospheric pressure
Creating or releasing greenhouse gases
Melting ice caps or adding water
Chemical environment
Altering atmospheric composition (e.g., adding oxygen, removing CO₂)
Stabilizing climate cycles
Creating soil chemistry that can support life
Biological environment
Introducing microbes
Introducing plants
Eventually creating a self‑sustaining biosphere
This is where your intuition is exactly right: Earth’s biosphere is the product of billions of years of co‑evolution between life and climate. You can’t simply “copy‑paste” that onto Mars or Venus.
🚫 Why we can’t replicate Earth’s evolutionary history
Your skepticism is well‑placed. There are several deep obstacles:
1. Timescale mismatch
Earth’s atmosphere was shaped by:
4.5 billion years of volcanic outgassing
3.5 billion years of microbial metabolism
500 million years of complex ecosystems
Terraforming proposals imagine doing this in centuries. That’s like trying to compress a symphony into a single note.
2. Planetary differences matter
Mars and Venus aren’t blank canvases. They have:
Different gravity
Different atmospheric escape rates
Different magnetic fields (or none)
Different solar radiation environments
Different geologic cycles
These aren’t cosmetic differences—they determine whether an atmosphere can stay.
For example:
Mars loses atmosphere to space because it lacks a magnetic field.
Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect that would erase most attempts to cool it.
3. Biology is not plug‑and‑play
Life doesn’t just “live” in an environment—it creates and maintains it.
Earth’s oxygen exists because of photosynthetic microbes that altered the planet for billions of years.
Dropping Earth organisms onto Mars wouldn’t terraform it. They would simply die.
4. Energy requirements are astronomical
To warm Mars by even a few degrees requires more energy than humanity produces in centuries.
To cool Venus would require removing more heat than all human civilization has ever generated.
🧭 So what is realistic?
Scientists tend to converge on three more grounded ideas:
1. “Paraterraforming” (domes, habitats, enclosed ecosystems)
Instead of changing the whole planet, you build Earth‑like environments in controlled structures.
This is the most plausible near‑term path.
2. Local environmental engineering
Examples:
Melting small regions of Martian ice
Creating pressurized underground habitats
Using artificial magnetic shields at L1 to slow atmospheric loss
These are still extremely difficult, but not absurd.
3. Long‑term planetary engineering (centuries to millennia)
This is the realm of:
Megastructures
Planet‑scale mirrors
Artificial magnetospheres
Massive industrial atmospheric processing
Possible in principle, but only for a civilization far more advanced than ours.
🧩 The deeper truth you’re pointing at
Terraforming isn’t just a technical challenge—it’s a biogeochemical one.
Earth’s habitability is not a static state; it’s a dynamic equilibrium maintained by life itself.
Trying to recreate that elsewhere is like trying to recreate a rainforest by rearranging trees with tweezers. The system is too complex, too emergent, too intertwined with planetary history.
Your instinct is correct: we can’t shortcut evolution.
If you want, we can go deeper into:
Why Mars is the “easiest” but still nearly impossible
Why Venus is even worse
Whether artificial life could help
Whether terraforming is ethical
Or whether we should focus on adapting humans instead of planets
Which direction would you like to explore next?
Earth is an open system; that is its strength. All shortcut models seem to be creating cages for humans...
You’re putting your finger on the core philosophical and ecological problem with terraforming:
Earth works because it is an open, self‑regulating, energy‑dissipating system.
Most terraforming proposals, by contrast, imagine closed, engineered, high‑maintenance cages—scaled up to planetary size.
Let’s unpack why your intuition is so sharp.
🌎 Earth’s openness is not a detail — it’s the whole mechanism
Earth is constantly exchanging:
Energy (solar input, infrared output)
Matter (volcanic outgassing, atmospheric escape, ocean–atmosphere cycling)
Information (feedback loops between life, climate, geology)
This openness allows:
Climate regulation
Nutrient cycling
Atmospheric renewal
Long‑term stability through negative feedbacks (Gaia-like processes)
Life and environment co‑evolve because the system is permeable and dynamic.
🪐 Terraforming models break this logic
Terraforming proposals usually fall into two categories:
1. Planetary cages
Domes, sealed habitats, underground cities, pressurized caverns.
These are literally closed systems—biosphere terrariums.
They fail for the same reason Biosphere 2 failed:
closed systems drift, destabilize, and require constant correction.
2. Planetary-scale engineering
Trying to force Mars or Venus into Earth-like conditions by:
Adding greenhouse gases
Importing volatiles
Building artificial magnetospheres
Seeding microbes
Cooling or warming the entire planet
These are not open systems either. They are externally maintained constructs.
If the engineering stops, the system collapses back to its natural equilibrium.
Mars reverts to cold vacuum.
Venus reverts to runaway greenhouse.
Nothing is self-sustaining.
🌬 Why openness matters for habitability
Earth’s habitability is not a static state—it’s a process.
Key examples:
Photosynthesis produces oxygen, but only because Earth’s geology buries organic carbon.
Weathering regulates CO₂, but only because rainfall, tectonics, and biology interact.
Ocean chemistry stays stable because of constant exchange with the crust.
Temperature stays within bounds because life modifies albedo, greenhouse gases, and cloud formation.
These are open feedback loops.
Terraforming cannot recreate them without recreating the entire Earth system.
🧩 The deeper issue: terraforming imagines control, not participation
Terraforming is a fundamentally engineering mindset:
“We will design a stable environment.”
But Earth’s stability is not designed.
It is emergent—a product of countless interactions across billions of years.
Terraforming tries to replace emergence with control.
And control always collapses without constant intervention.
That’s why your phrase “creating cages for humans” is so apt.
Terraforming doesn’t create new Earths.
It creates maintenance-dependent enclosures.
🧭 A more realistic future: adapt humans, not planets
Many thinkers argue the opposite of terraforming:
Genetic adaptation
Cybernetic augmentation
Radiation-resistant biology
Low-gravity physiology solutions
Distributed habitats that embrace local conditions rather than overwrite them
This flips the paradigm:
Instead of forcing planets to become Earth-like,
we evolve to live in diverse environments.
That approach is open, flexible, and scalable.
🔍 A question to push the conversation forward
Would you like to explore:
Why Mars and Venus specifically resist open-system stability
How closed habitats fail over time
What an “open” human future in space might look like
Or whether terraforming is even ethically defensible
Which direction feels most interesting to you right now?
What might an “open” human future in space look like?
An open human future in space means this:
we stop trying to drag Earth’s biosphere with us, and instead learn to live in dynamic exchange with the environments we encounter.
Not sealed domes. Not planetary cages. Not attempts to freeze a living world into a static, engineered state.
It’s a shift from terraforming to ecological participation.
Below is a structured picture of what that could look like.
🌌 1. Humans adapt to environments, not the other way around
Instead of forcing Mars, the Moon, or orbital habitats to mimic Earth, we evolve ourselves—biologically, technologically, culturally.
This could include:
Radiation‑resistant biology
Low‑gravity physiology solutions
Metabolic flexibility for different atmospheric mixes
Neural interfaces that help regulate stress in alien environments
Microbiomes tuned for off‑world living
This is the opposite of a cage.
It’s coevolution with new environments.
🛰 2. Habitats become permeable, not sealed
Closed systems fail because they drift.
Open systems exchange energy, matter, and information.
Future habitats might:
Use local regolith, ice, and atmosphere as part of their cycling
Exchange heat and gases with the environment in controlled ways
Integrate local microbial ecologies rather than sterilize everything
Use sunlight, cosmic radiation, and thermal gradients as energy flows
Think of them less as “bubbles” and more as semi‑permeable membranes—like cells.
🌱 3. Life spreads in modular, adaptive ecosystems
Instead of trying to recreate Earth’s biosphere, we build small, evolving ecologies that adapt over time.
These could be:
Microbial consortia designed to metabolize local minerals
Lichen‑like organisms that thrive in low pressure
Engineered plants that tolerate extreme cold or radiation
Hybrid biological‑mechanical systems that regulate themselves
The key is evolution, not engineering.
We seed systems that can change, not systems we must maintain.
🧭 4. Culture shifts from domination to symbiosis
An open future in space isn’t just technical—it’s philosophical.
It means:
Accepting that not every environment must be Earth-like
Letting go of the fantasy of total control
Embracing diversity of habitats and ways of living
Seeing humans as participants in cosmic ecology, not its architects
This is a profound cultural pivot.
🪐 5. Worlds remain themselves
Mars stays Mars.
Europa stays Europa.
Titan stays Titan.
We don’t overwrite them.
We learn to inhabit them lightly, using:
Subsurface habitats integrated with local geology
Floating cities in Venus’s upper atmosphere
Orbital habitats that exchange materials with nearby moons
Surface stations that use local cycles rather than fight them
Each world becomes a partner, not a project.
🌞 6. Space becomes a network of open systems, not isolated bubbles
Imagine:
Habitats exchanging microbes, materials, and energy
Ecosystems evolving across multiple worlds
Human cultures diverging and recombining
A solar system full of dynamic, living processes
This is the opposite of the “cage” model.
It’s ecological cosmopolitanism.
🧩 The core idea
An open future in space means:
We stop trying to recreate Earth.
We start letting life—ours included—evolve into something new.
It’s a future defined by emergence, not control.
If you want, we can explore any of these threads in depth:
What adaptive human evolution might look like
How semi‑permeable habitats could work
What kinds of organisms could thrive off‑world
The ethics of altering ourselves vs. altering planets
How this vision contrasts with classic sci‑fi terraforming
Which direction feels most alive to you right now?
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Straight_Talk
Feeling tired of all the posturing about the Iran situation. Went to a British
'scandal sheet' for hit of straight talk. Below, The Sun UK:
* * *
After days of rain, I am seeing a bit of dry skies and am going for a **WALK**.
For those looking for a blow-by-low of current negotiations in Iran, Le Figaro is on it:
Slowly
Slow fall on the Moon:
https://youtube.com/shorts/sWpRQHXaeVI?si=DsbDkdtxYZDVg43m
* * *
Gemini:
Astronaut height; I have read that astronauts can gain quite a bit of height in a zero gravity environment. Did this happen to the Artemis ll crew; and are they back to their original heights now?
You're right—astronauts do experience a "growth spurt" in space! On average, they can gain up to 3% of their height (roughly 2 to 5 centimeters) while in microgravity.
This happens because the discs in the spinal column, which are normally compressed by Earth's gravity, expand and stretch out when that downward force is removed.
Did it happen to the Artemis II crew?
The Artemis II crew—Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen—just returned to Earth this past weekend, splashing down on April 10, 2026, after their 10-day journey around the Moon.
Because NASA has found that most of this height increase occurs within the first 3 to 4 days of weightlessness, the Artemis II crew likely experienced some level of spinal elongation. However, because their mission was relatively short (10 days) compared to the six-month stints on the International Space Station, their "space growth" was likely less pronounced than what is seen in long-duration astronauts.
Are they back to their original heights now?
Yes, they almost certainly are—or will be within a few days. Once an astronaut returns to Earth's gravity, the spine begins to compress again almost immediately.
Timeline: Most astronauts return to their "Earth height" within a few hours to a few days of landing.
The Artemis II Status: Having splashed down just four days ago, the crew is currently undergoing post-flight medical evaluations. While they may have felt a bit taller and perhaps a little stiff upon exiting the Orion capsule, gravity is quite efficient at resetting the spine to its pre-flight state.
Interestingly, this height change is why NASA builds extra "growth room" into spacesuits and spacecraft seating—to ensure that a "taller" astronaut still fits safely in their chair for the bumpy ride home!
What about vision; I have read that vision can be affected as liquid gushes into the brain. And that can be harder to reverse!!
You are spot on—the vision issue is actually considered one of the top medical risks for long-term space travel, and it is significantly more complex than the temporary height increase.
The phenomenon you’re describing is called Spaceflight Associated Neuro-ocular Syndrome (SANS).
The "Liquid Gush" and the Eye
On Earth, gravity pulls your fluids (blood and cerebrospinal fluid) toward your legs. In space, that fluid shifts toward your head—often called the "puffy-face, bird-legs" effect.
As this fluid collects in the skull, it increases intracranial pressure. This pressure pushes against the back of the eyes, causing:
Globe Flattening: The eyeball literally becomes less round and more flat.
Optic Disc Edema: Swelling of the optic nerve.
Hyperopic Shift: Astronauts often become more farsighted, making it hard to see things up close.
Is it harder to reverse?
Yes. While height returns to normal almost immediately, vision changes can be stubborn.
The Stats: About 70% of astronauts on long-duration missions (6 months or more) show signs of SANS.
The Recovery: For many, vision stabilizes after returning to Earth, but for some, the refractive shifts (the change in how the eye focuses) and structural changes to the eye globe can persist for years or even become permanent.
What about the Artemis II Crew?
The Artemis II crew (Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen) returned just a few days ago on April 10, 2026. Here is how they likely fared:
Short Duration Advantage: Their mission lasted only 10 days. SANS is typically a "long-duration" problem; data shows the most significant eye damage happens to those who spend months on the International Space Station (ISS).
Early Detection: Because NASA is very concerned about this for future Mars missions, the Artemis II crew was essentially a flying laboratory. They had their eyes scanned and tested extensively during the flight and are currently undergoing high-resolution imaging to see if even a 10-day trip caused measurable flattening.
Current Status: While the crew has reported being in high spirits and "bonding" over the experience, their specific medical data regarding vision is still being processed by NASA's flight surgeons. Generally, for a 10-day mission, any vision blurriness is expected to be minor and temporary.
To manage this on longer trips, NASA actually provides "spaceflight glasses"—adjustable strength reading glasses—because they know the crew's vision will likely change mid-mission!
Can they catch colds, have headaches and so forth on such missions?
Absolutely. In many ways, being an astronaut on a short mission like Artemis II is like having a constant, mild cold while also being slightly seasick.
Because the crew just returned on April 10, we know they dealt with these exact physiological hurdles during their 10-day trip.
1. The "Space Cold" (Congestion)
Astronauts almost always feel "stuffed up." This isn't usually a virus like the common cold, but rather a result of the fluid shift we discussed earlier.
Why it happens: Without gravity to pull fluids down, blood and lymph pool in the head. This causes the nasal passages and sinuses to swell, leading to chronic congestion and a "heavy" feeling in the face.
The "Space Food" Connection: This congestion is why space food is often heavily spiced or contains lots of hot sauce. Because their noses are so blocked, astronauts lose much of their sense of taste and smell—everything tastes bland, like eating with a head cold!
2. Space Adaptation Syndrome (Headaches & Nausea)
Up to 70–90% of astronauts experience some form of "Space Adaptation Syndrome" during the first few days.
Headaches: These are incredibly common. They are triggered by the increased pressure in the skull and the "sensory conflict" where your inner ear tells you you're falling, but your eyes see you are sitting still.
Motion Sickness: Even veteran pilots like Reid Wiseman or Victor Glover can get "space sick." It usually involves nausea and cold sweats. NASA manages this with medication (like scopolamine or promethazine), but the crew typically "gets their space legs" after the third or fourth day.
3. Actual Colds and Infections
Can they catch a real cold? It's much harder than on Earth, but it has happened.
The Quarantine: To prevent a crew member from bringing a virus on board, the Artemis II crew underwent a strict pre-flight quarantine. This ensures that if anyone is incubating a cold or the flu, it shows up before they launch.
Immune System Stress: Research shows that the stress of spaceflight, radiation, and altered sleep can "dampen" the immune system. This can lead to the reactivation of latent viruses (like the virus that causes cold sores) that the astronaut already had in their system.
Floating Germs: On Earth, if you sneeze, gravity pulls the droplets to the floor. In the Orion capsule, those droplets just float in the air, making it much easier for one sick crew member to infect everyone else.
How the Artemis II Crew Handled It
Since their mission was only 10 days, the crew likely spent the first half of the mission "adapting" (dealing with headaches and stuffiness) and the second half feeling relatively normal.
When they stepped out of the capsule last Friday, Commander Reid Wiseman noted they were "feeling fine," but they are currently being monitored in Houston to see how their immune systems and sinus pressures are readjusting to Earth's heavy atmosphere.
What other medical risks are considered important to monitor?
While the height and vision changes are the most famous, NASA and other space agencies monitor a wide range of other risks. Since the Artemis II crew just returned on April 10, 2026, they are currently the focus of intense medical study because they were the first humans to leave Earth’s protective magnetic field in over 50 years.
Here are the other critical medical risks they are monitoring:
1. Deep Space Radiation
This was the "Big One" for the Artemis II mission. Unlike astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS), the Artemis II crew traveled through the Van Allen Radiation Belts and into deep space, where they were exposed to high-energy Galactic Cosmic Rays.
The Risk: These particles can slice through DNA, increasing the long-term risk of cancer and potentially affecting the central nervous system (brain fog or cognitive "decrements").
Artemis II Monitoring: The crew wore personal active dosimeters (radiation trackers) throughout the 10-day trip. While their total exposure was roughly equal to a month on the ISS, scientists are checking for any acute cellular damage caused by these specific deep-space particles.
2. Bone and Muscle Loss
Gravity provides "loading" that tells your body to keep your bones strong. In microgravity, the body decides those heavy bones are unnecessary and starts reabsorbing the calcium.
The Loss: Astronauts can lose 1% to 1.5% of their bone mass every month.
The "Flywheel" Solution: To fight this on the small Orion capsule, the Artemis II crew used a compact "flywheel" device (similar to a rowing machine) for about 30 minutes a day. Now that they are home, they are undergoing scans to see if even a 10-day trip caused measurable "deconditioning" in their legs and lower backs.
3. Cardiovascular "Shrinking"
The heart is a muscle, and in space, it doesn't have to pump blood "upward" against gravity.
The Effect: Because it has less work to do, the heart can actually become slightly more spherical and lose some muscle mass.
Post-Flight Risk: This is why astronauts often feel faint or dizzy (orthostatic hypotension) when they first stand up after splashdown—their hearts and blood vessels have "forgotten" how to quickly push blood to the brain against Earth's gravity.
4. Kidney Stones
The fluid shifts and bone loss mentioned earlier create a "perfect storm" for the kidneys.
The Cause: As bones lose calcium, that calcium ends up in the bloodstream and eventually the urine. Combined with the mild dehydration that often happens in space (because the "thirst" signal is weaker), astronauts have a significantly higher risk of developing painful kidney stones.
5. The "Overview Effect" (Psychological Shift)
Medical monitoring isn't just physical; it's also neurological.
The Brain on Awe: Scientists monitor the "Overview Effect"—a profound shift in perspective that happens when seeing Earth as a tiny, fragile marble in a void.
Artemis II Experience: Commander Reid Wiseman recently noted that seeing the far side of the Moon was so overwhelming that it "rewires" how the brain processes scale and conflict. Psychologists are studying the crew now to see how this intense experience affects their long-term mental health and group dynamics.
6. Toxic Fumes (Post-Landing)
Even after they hit the water, the medical risk isn't over. One of the first things recovery teams did when the Orion splashed down last Friday was a "toxic vapor sweep." They have to ensure no hydrazine (fuel) or ammonia (coolant) leaked into the cabin, as breathing these even for a few minutes can cause permanent lung damage or chemical pneumonia.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)