Methylobacteriaceae
Three previously unknown strains of bacteria were found growing in the International Space Station, according to a recent genetic analysis. The discovery could help scientists develop better ways to grow food on Mars.
The analysis, published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology, describes how astronauts collected four strains of bacteria within the space station in 2011, 2015 and 2016. It was part of an ongoing surveillance program that tasks astronauts with monitoring eight sites of the space station for bacterial growth.
Astronauts have already sent hundreds of samples back to Earth for analysis, and thousands more are scheduled to be sent back on return missions.
The newly discovered strains belong to a family of bacteria called Methylobacteriaceae, which is commonly found in soil and freshwater. These bacteria help plants grow, fix nitrogen and stop pathogens.
International Space Station
Credit: NASA
So, how did these novel microbes get in the space station? They likely came from the plant-growing experiments that astronauts have been conducting for years aboard the ISS, such as the Advanced Plant Habitat, an automated growth chamber that grows plants in space so scientists can study them back on Earth.
The new strains could be beneficial to space farming. After all, it's already clear that the bacteria can survive the conditions of the space station, and the researchers wrote that the strains might possess "biotechnologically useful genetic determinants" that could help astronauts grow food on long-term missions, or on other planets.
"To grow plants in extreme places where resources are minimal, isolation of novel microbes that help to promote plant growth under stressful conditions is essential," study authors Kasthuri Venkateswaran and Nitin K. Singh said in a press release.
"Needless to say, the ISS is a cleanly-maintained extreme environment. Crew safety is the number 1 priority and hence understanding human/plant pathogens are important, but beneficial microbes like this novel Methylobacterium ajmalii are also needed."
To accelerate their understanding of how bacteria behaves in space, Singh and Venkateswaran proposed developing customized equipment that astronauts could use to analyze bacteria on the space station.
"Instead of bringing samples back to Earth for analyses, we need an integrated microbial monitoring system that collect, process, and analyze samples in space using molecular technologies," they said. "This miniaturized 'omics in space' technology — a biosensor development — will help NASA and other space-faring nations achieve safe and sustainable space exploration for long periods of time."
Genome-based phylogenetic tree showing the phylogenetic relationship of Methylobacterium ajmalii sp. nov. with members of the family Methylobacteriaceae.
Credit: Bijlani et al.
NASA is hoping to send humans to Mars by the 2030s, while private companies like SpaceX are aiming to reach the Red Planet this decade. For any Mars mission, developing sustainable ways to grow food is critical. That's mainly because it's impractical for astronauts to pack the food they'll need for the journey, which will take 14 months roundtrip, not including time spent on the planet.
Astronauts also need to stay healthy. The main problem with prepackaged food, besides its weight, is that the nutrients break over time. That's why NASA has been experimenting with growing various types of nutritious plants through projects like Veggie and the more recent Advanced Plant Habitat. These projects help scientists learn about the complexities of growing plants in microgravity, and how plants might grow on Mars.
NASA astronaut and Expedition 64 Flight Engineer Kate Rubins checks out radish plants growing for the Plant Habitat-02 experiment.
Credit: NASA
But growing plants in space isn't all about nutrition. NASA notes that plants are psychologically beneficial to people, both on Earth and in space. These psychological benefits might become especially important to astronauts on long-term missions millions of miles away from Earth.
Here's how astronaut Peggy Whitson, who worked aboard the International Space Station, described seeing plants in space for the first time:
"It was surprising to me how great 6 soybean plants looked," she told Space Daily. "I guess seeing something green for the first time in a month and a half had a real effect. From a psychological perspective, I think it's interesting that the reaction was as dramatic as it was. [...] I guess if we go to Mars, we need a garden!"
The following is an excerpt from The Right Way to Lose a War: America in an Age of Unwinnable Conflicts. It is reprinted with permission of the author.
We live in an age of power, peace, and loss. Since 1945, the United States has emerged as the unsurpassed superpower, relations between countries have been unusually stable, and the American experience of conflict has been a tale of frustration and defeat.
This raises the first paradox: We lose because the world is peaceful. The decline of interstate war and the relative harmony among the great powers is cause for celebration. But the interstate wars that disappeared are the kind of wars that we win. And the civil wars that remain are the kind of wars that we lose. As the tide of conflict recedes, we're left with the toughest and most unyielding internal struggles.
It's also hard to win great victories in an era of peace. During the golden age, the United States faced trials of national survival, like the Civil War and World War II. The potential benefits were so momentous that Washington could overthrow the enemy at almost any cost in American blood and treasure and still claim the win. But in wars since 1945, the threats are diminished. Since the prize on offer is less valuable, the acceptable price we will pay in lives and money is also dramatically reduced. To achieve victory, the campaign must be quick and decisive — with little margin for error. Without grave peril, it's tough to enter the pantheon of martial valor.
There's a second paradox: We lose because we're strong. U.S. power encouraged Americans to follow the sound of battle into distant lands. But the United States became more interventionist just as the conflict environment shifted in ways that blunted America's military edge. As a result, Washington was no longer able to translate power into victory. If America was weaker, its military record might actually be more favorable. With fewer capabilities, the idea of invading Iraq would have stayed in the realm of dreams.
Indeed, the two paradoxes are connected. American power helped usher in the age of interstate peace, as Washington constructed a fairly democratic and stable "free world" in the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, and East Asia, fashioned institutions like the United Nations, and oversaw a globalized trading system. But this left intractable civil wars as the prevailing kind of conflict. And American power also tempted Washington to search for monsters to destroy in far-flung locations. In other words, power and peace are the parents of loss.
No one wants to go back to the days of weakness, war, and winning. A favorable record in major conflict is poor compensation for global catastrophe. But as we enjoy the fruits of power and peace, we should steel ourselves for more battlefield setbacks. The dark age of American warfare looks set to endure. In the future, conflict will likely remain dominated by civil wars. American strength will continue to lure presidents into foreign intervention. The U.S. military will resist preparing for counterinsurgency. Guerrillas, by contrast, will learn and adapt — and bloody the United States.
Currently, life expectancy in the U.S. is about 78.5 years. However, that number is a general value, and it can shift dramatically based on variables such as sex, race, how old you are now, and even where you live. These shifts can be dramatic. There is a three decade discrepancy in life expectancy between Chicago neighborhoods.
The literature on the topic often wavers between the importance of personal actions and the benefits of a particular location. Now, a study published in American Economic Review examines how the life expectancy of a typical 65-year-old changes with locale and finds that some locations are much better for growing old.
A new map of the United States
This map shows the effect on life expectancy for a 65-year-old moving to each commuter zone in the United States. The darker shades represent a positive effect on life expectancy, while the lighter colors represent negative health effects.
The places that are good for a person's longevity tend to be on the coasts or in and around larger cities. As a general rule, longer life expectancy is associated with locations that have better quality and quantity of healthcare, more moderate climates, lower crime rates, less pollution, and higher socioeconomic status. Also, people who naturally have a tendency toward longer life (for example, because of genetics) can reap greater benefits by living in a healthier location.
However, location is not everything. People who move to an area may experience a nice "treatment effect" of longer life, while those born in the area do not reap the same benefits. For example, people who relocate to Charlotte, North Carolina experience a bump in life expectancy, but natives have a lower than average life expectancy. The reverse is true in Santa Fe — that is, the area has higher than average life expectancy, but people who move there do not seem to reap any benefit.
Cheat death by moving to Seattle
In the words of the authors, "Moving from a tenth to a ninetieth percentile location would increase life expectancy at age 65 by 1.1 years." Given that this study found that the life expectancy for a 65-year-old in the U.S. is 83.3 years, an additional 1.1 years is a modest increase.
The study has some limitations. The effect of moving on people of different ages was not considered in this study, nor was the impact of the length of time a person stayed in a new location. The authors also note that which elements of the environment are most important in extending life expectancy are not clear.
Still, if you are looking to age gracefully, consider a move. We hear Seattle is nice.
