SPACE AGING

November 13, 1998
		What was accomplished during this space flight? Science writer David Chandler from the Boston Globe will answer your questions.

Nov. 5, 1998: A brief excerpt from a news conference in space by John Glenn. Nov. 5, 1998: Words on John Glenn from poet Robert Pinksy. Oct. 29, 1998: The science of John Glenn's mission. Oct. 28, 1998: John Glenn returns to space aboard the shuttle Discovery. Oct. 28, 1998: Phil Ponce looks at the Glenn flight from an historical perspective. March 6, 1998: NASA scientist Alan Binder discusses the new discovery of water on the moon. Feb. 27, 1998: Is the universe is evolving more rapidly now than it has in the past? Jan. 16, 1998: Details of Senator John Glenn's planned trip back into orbit at age 77. Oct. 15, 1997: NASA begins its seven year mission to explore Saturn. Oct. 2, 1997: Forty years after Sputnik first circled the Earth, historians examine its impact. Sept. 30, 1997: An interview with Mir astronauts. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of Science     National Institute on Aging Aging Research Center Yahoo Coverage of John Glenn NASA Homepage

E Koronet of Maryland asks : After watching your segment this evening showing bone density loss and other effects of aging, I wonder what effect this trip is expected to have on John Glenn's body. The talk has all been about how he's participating in experiments and contributing to studies, but no one has talked about the risks he's taking. Is he likely to have a body that is many earth-years older when he returns? David Chandler responds: Glenn has spoken at great length about the many similarities between some of the effects of aging and some of the effects of spending time in a weightless environment: Bone loss, muscle loss, difficulty sleeping, and disruption of the sense of balance. These similarities make it interesting scientifically to study how some of these effects happen in someone who is in both categories -- an older person in space. If he had taken a long-duration mission, like the six-month stints that some US astronauts have put in aboard the Russian Mir space station, then he might indeed have experienced some serious effects -- although so far there is no evidence that any of these effects have been irreversible. Astronauts have always regained their lost bone and muscle within weeks or months of landing. But on a nine-day mission like the one Glenn experienced, the effects are very minor and require little readjustment time. Most astronauts feel back to normal within hours, or at most a few days. Glenn himself has said that while he really felt the effects of gravity right after landing, he felt back to normal the next day. Robert L. Cox of Clinton, IL asks : How can the cost of a shuttle flight justify sending any individual into space for something as inconsequential as studying aging in space? In fact, there is little value in sending the shuttle into space at all and the cost of this portion of NASA's budget should be eliminated entirely. David Chandler responds: First of all, the mission on which Glenn flew was one that had already been planned and scheduled, so there was very little additional cost involved in sending him along. The mission was part of a long series of missions designed to learn more about how human beings and other living animals and plants react to prolonged weightlessness. Many people think that eventually large numbers of people will end up living and working in space, either to work in scientific research projects or manufacturing plants, or just to visit an exotic tourist destination. If large numbers of people are going to have this experience, it's important to learn as much as we can about how they will be affected -- and how to prevent damaging effects. But the lessons to be learned may be much broader than that. It's possible that insights gained from research in orbit -- for example, learning new details about the aging process -- might also help to bring about new treatments or medications that could be useful for people here on Earth, not just those who actually get to fly in space. And many research projects, including some on this mission, have looked into the possibility that some medications could eventually be manufactured in orbit -- possibly ones that could not be made at all, or not as efficiently or economically, on Earth. Stephen Tibbets of Princeton, NJ asks: I disagree with the two choices - stunt or science. Yes, there is some science. Yes, it is angling for publicity. But is that necessarily bad? Some would say that helping people to feel excitement about the space program is a good thing. If we are going to spend so many billions on the space program, we might as well feel good about it. Please comment David Chandler responds: I vividly remember the days that my parents let me stay home from school to watch the first US flights into space, including John Glenn's original flight. There was certainly a level of excitement, enthusiasm -- and fear -- in those early missions that are difficult to recapture today. If Glenn brought a taste of that excitement back (or brought it about for the first time for younger viewers), and it certainly seems to have done so, then that may have value in itself. And if it results in greater support for NASA's overall scientific work and exploration, many would say that was well worth it. But the effects of the publicity will not just be felt by NASA and its supporters. Perhaps the biggest impact may be on how many people react to older citizens in general: Glenn may have made many people think twice before rejecting somebody for a job or some other opportunity just because they are above a certain age. If this mission creates new opportunities and fewer rejections for older people in many kinds of activities, that may well turn out to have been the most significant impact of the mission. I don't remember who first said it, but I agree with the statement that after Glenn's flight, children will never again look at their grandparents in quite the same way. Bruce C. Daniels of Running Springs, CA asks: How does the independent science and medical community regard the relative importance of these experiments at the cost of $1 billion, as opposed to other forms of research (AIDS, cancer, etc)? David Chandler responds: First of all, it's not as though this were an either-or choice. The reality is that whenever cutbacks have been made in NASA's budget, there has never been a corresponding rise in any other kind of research funding. In fact, the history is, if anything, the opposite: The Apollo years, when NASA's spending was greatest, were also a high point for research in general. Nevertheless, many scientists do question the level of government funding for work that is considered relatively routine, as opposed to cutting-edge research. Many would put the whole space shuttle program, and the construction of the space station that is about to begin, in that category, and would favor cutting back on such missions in favor of much less expensive robotic missions in space. But others counter that it's the human missions that create public excitement and support, and without that support it would be politically impossible to get the funding needed for other research work in space. And since nobody questions the need for basic medical research, there's no reason to think that its funding would be affected one way or the other.