"Space Exploration is a Waste of Time and Resourses": a Discussion of The Claim

The claim 'Space exploration is a waste of time and resourses' has a number of notable features to analyse in this essay. Discussion of this claim has been addressed by many researchers over a vast number of topics in order to come to an answer. Thus, a broad research question was developed from this claim ‘How does space exploration contribute to the lives of humans?’ This was further refined to consider the key research discussed in the article 'Doctors will grow human tissue on the International Space Station’, specifically concerning the development of human tissue in regard to current medical issues surrounding microgravity muscle loss in space. This refinement and the specific research question is addressed in the following research instigated to answer the claim. The principle environmental conditions in space in contrast to Earth are the absence of gravity, charged-particle-deflecting geomagnetic field, and negligence of an atmosphere. Space is a challenging environment for the human body, due to the combined effects of reduced gravity (microgravity) and cosmic radiation. Recognised impacts of microgravity extend from the blood redistribution that influences the cardiovascular system and the eye to muscle wasting, bone loss, iron deficiency, and resistant discouragement. Furthermore, numerous physiological elements, such as spinal elongation, fluid shifts, and bone decay transpire during exposure to microgravity environments. Microgravity has profound effects on the human body and its cells, and insights gained from research conducted onboard the International Space Station (ISS) National Lab aid in the advancement of regenerative medicine on Earth. Microgravity influences the manner in which cells aggregate, enabling them to develop into three-dimensional structures of human body tissue more meticulously copied – providing improved models to investigate cell behaviour and test drugs and expanding advances in tissue engineering. Microgravity may also enhance certain properties of stem cells, which could potentially benefit significantly to advancements in personalised medicine and development of stem-based regenerative therapies. Therefore, this investigation proposes the following research question ‘Could developing human body parts through regenerative medicine in space potentially revolutionize human physics?’

In order to answer the proposed research question, it must first be understood what is being asked by the claim. Space exploration is the discovery and investigation of interplanetary or interstellar space, its properties, biology and the bodies within it, through means of developing and growing space technology. On Earth, certain muscles, such as the calf muscles, quadriceps and the muscles of the back and neck are required to support the body against gravity’s force. However, due to lack of gravity in space, significant mechanical unloading of mammalian tissue is present, resulting in rapid alteration of physiology which poses an exponential threat for long-duration spaceflight. This process is often called atrophy – the decrease in the mass of the muscle; it can be partial or complete wasting away of the muscle and is often caused by the very little muscle contraction needed to support astronauts bodies or move around in space. Regenerative medicine is a branch of medicine concerning developing therapies in response to this through translation research in tissue engineering and molecular biology which addresses the process of “replacing, engineering or regenerating human cells, tissue, or organs to restore or establish normal function”.

Evidence and Evaluation of the Topic

Studies have demonstrated astronauts experience a significant increase in muscle mass loss of 20 percent on short-duration spaceflights. Without applying countermeasures, this percentage could drastically increase to 50 – half the muscle mass of the individual. In an effort to combat this, astronauts on the ISS spend 2.5 hours daily exercising intensively to reduce the effects of muscle atrophy. Despite substantial in-flight exercise, it was reported 40 percent of capacity for physical work diminished as a result of muscle loss in the first cellular analysis of muscles from astronauts to have spent 180 days at the ISS. On average, 35 percent of astronauts muscle loss accounted for ability to produce force, and 20 percent towards velocity. These two factors contributed to 45 percent of loss of power essential to enact strong and quick motions. The study was a responsive follow-up to previous analysis regarding muscle size, of which researchers observed the loss of muscle volume to be 15 percent. Additionally, remodelling of the bone structure and/or bone loss during spaceflight culminates at a rate of 1-2% per month, to which after six months in space osteoporosis symptoms are significantly present. Despite support provided from this information apropos to the research question, limitations need to be considered. The dates of particular sources used, such as NASA, cannot be located. Consequently, the relevance of the data cannot be confirmed and would need further pertinent research to fortify the stated evidence and its relevance to current studies.

Tissue engineering of the vitro cultivation of cartilage cells was conducted in a study via the Mir Space Station and Earth. Three-dimensional cell-polymer constructs compromising of bovine articular chondrocytes and polyglycolic corrosive scaffolds were developed in rotating bioreactors, initially for three-months on Earth and another four on either Mir or Earth. This mission enabled opportunities to study the feasibility present in long-term cell culture flight experiments and evaluate the impacts of spaceflight on the proliferation and functionality of a model musculoskeletal tissue. Both environments yielded cartilaginous constructs, each weighing between 0.3 and 0.4 g and consisting of feasible, differentiated cells that synthesized proteoglycan and type II collagen. Opposed to Earth gatherings, the Mir-developed constructs were progressively spherical, smaller, and mechanically inferior. The same bioreactor system can be utilized for assortments of controlled microgravity investigations of cartilage and other tissues. These results may have implications for human spaceflight and clinical medicine, with improved comprehension of the impacts of pseudo-weightlessness in delayed immobilization, hydrotherapy, and intrauterine development. Although the aforementioned evidence correlates to the proposed claim, backing evidence of this experiment and the experiment itself conducted would need to be confirmed or it can be assumed the results projected may be incorrect or biased. Furthermore, the research suggests there may be interferences with the progress made so it must be taken into consideration when acknowledging this source.

Thin tissue, for example cartilage or skin, has been proven successful in the past by biomedical engineers, though complex organs such as the liver have revealed to be difficult. A prominent challenge of this is within the environment of which the body organs develop – soft and buoyant – whereas artificial scaffolding for tissue engineering will generally comprise of hard plastic and, under the influence of gravity, settle to the base of a container. Contrary to this, growth of liver tissue in an imitated microgravity environment has shown promise of progress as cells can metabolise more drugs compared to those engineered in static containers. Essentially, this shows that microgravity has a significant rate of mimicking the natural environment where organs develop more easily. The work could largely advantage astronauts suffering muscle loss whilst on long-term expeditions. Though, the information relayed may be present in limitations. This is the lack of reference to the origin of the experiment, so the author may have tampered or inserted bias input into the investigation. Additionally, no progress has been reported of conducting tissue development in space itself compared to an imitated environment – a significant limitation when taking into account the research being investigated.

Much of the evidence used in response to the research question corroborated with other evidence used or found when analysing the reliability and components of the sources. Statistics and information relating to muscle loss were conducted in experiments about astronauts in space specifically, further solidifying the threat of atrophy to be present and the content of the research question. Additionally, reputable and credible sources were predominantly used when extrapolating the findings of evidence and the evidence itself, thus strengthening the reliability and support of the research question in relation to the claim. However, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the research question, there are some issues associated with the evidence presented. Evidence of the stated experiments proceeded could not be confirmed as no records of these experiments were presented, so further investigation of supporting research and/or evidence would need to be presented. Suggestions for future analysis to support findings would include using the data of tissue development instigated in space rather than a mimicked environment so as to provide results of the proposed question itself. Though, it can be proved that these experiments have shown promise to success of progress from these mimicked microgravity environments and possibility of tissue development in space to be revolutionary.

Conclusion

The proposed research question ‘Could developing human body parts through regenerative medicine in space potentially revolutionize human physics?’ has been answered after investigating qualitative and quantitative evidence, disputing the claim ‘Space exploration is a waste of time.’ Evidence gathered indicates this deduction by evaluating percentage loss of muscle over the duration of spaceflight, and previous tissue engineering experimentation in mimicked microgravity environments to prove success in the suggested proposition of the research question and the opportunities presented. Thus, it is evident that the claim has adequately been disproved through conclusive evidence found through the proposed research question in response to the claim.  

References

1. Garber, S. J., & Launius, R. D. (Eds.). (2010). Societal Impact of Spaceflight: Summary and Proceedings. NASA History Division.

2. NASA. (2018). Benefits to You: For the Benefit of All. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/benefits-flier_2018.pdf

3. Cruikshank, D. P. (2016). The Expanding Universe: A Primer on Relativistic Cosmology. Cambridge University Press.

4. Space Foundation. (2017). The Space Report 2017: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity. Space Foundation.

   Keep in mind:
   This is only a sample.

   Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

   Get custom essay

5. Landis, G. A. (2005). Impact of Space Activities Upon Society. Space Policy, 21(4), 237-243.