First tomato ever grown in space, lost 8 months ago, found by NASA astronauts
cbsnews.com
cbsnews.com
Also, they blamed a guy for a while for having eaten the tomato, his name is now cleared. I was blaming him too thinking that ISS food was dehydrated or space paste. However, looks like they get some decent stuff like taco kits and pizzas at least time to time: https://www.nasa.gov/history/space-station-20th-food-on-iss/
We have some idea how it would look on earth. Pretty bad, if recognizable at all.
But I have no clue how deterioration and rot happen in space. Do the microbes that help break it down exist? Do fruit flies hitch rides to space? How does gravity affect decomposition? Do the conditions of being in orbit have any sort of preservation effect?
Yeah. I'd imagine it wasn't fresh, but it just isn't a given.
It probably is a shrivelled up dehydrated tomato.
But most probably edible. Wouldn't get much pleasure out of eating it though. Don't see bags of dehydrated tomatoes on the shop-shelf.
I'm surprised so many find it weird
I do. I have a bag in the cabinet. I use it most often on pizzas and pasta. Dehydrated tomatoes are delicious and are generally labeled "sun dried" even when there is no sun involved in the drying. Plus, I can order tomato powder and use it for things. Admittedly, I don't care for eating the dried tomatoes plain as it concentrates the flavor more (or differently?) than tomato paste does.
As in throw in a few chunks while making the base, and the flavour seems to transfer well without screwing things up. :)
Just because they are now in low gravity doesn't mean they will stop eating whatever they can. And without much gravity to hold them down I would expect they can actually spread more easily (imagine one cough or sneeze where droplets just go in straight line till hitting something).
On their skin, behind their nails, in their mouth, in their bowels and so on. Plus on and in everything else. No way getting rid of those
There's no reason to suspect they would. Even so, it is unlikely we could ever take advantage of this in any meaningful or efficient way.
> Do the microbes that help break it down exist?
Almost certainly. They're in excrement and the astronauts are allowed to bring some personal effects on board. Speaking of excrement, on Apollo, they didn't have an advanced toilet, so they just used bags. Apparently, they were instructed to seal the bag after adding an antibacterial agent, for fear of them eventually inflating from decomposition products and then popping.
Also.. quick search shows that ISS astronauts after 6 months to a year have _more_ bacteria on their skin and _might_ be why astronauts experience higher levels of inflammation in general.
Finally, let me drop my favorite ISS fact here, if you're doing work outside the ISS that requires turning a wrench, you must turn it _very_ slowly, less than 1 full turn per minute, because the low gravity environment means the ISS as a whole weighs next to nothing and vibrational modes from wrenching can setup very easily. This fact is specifically flagged in several spacewalk manuals.
Can you point me to a resource where I can read more about this? The closest thing I could find was an article from 1998 that stresses the importance of being tethered while wrenching so that you rotate the bolt, rather than the bolt rotating you: https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/1204/120498.us.us.3.html
edit: I still can't find anything explaining this, but I did find https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section14.htm and https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/143159main_s... which suggest bolt-driving power tools are used during spacewalks (which presumably get more than 1 RPM)
It was in a single STS missions space walk manual. It was the literal "sequence of events" manual. It had the timeline for the entire mission, the absolute procedure for every single movement, down to where to put your feet, which handrail number you were to grab with your hands, and where exactly your tethers where to be for each movement.
The case I remember reading had to do with unbolting and replacing a piece of equipment. If my memory serves me correctly it had to do with the cooling system and either an upgrade or maintenance replacement.
In that specific section, it had a small note, for the astronaut and for their handler on board, about the maximum rate at which the bolt could be wrenched. It specifically called out vibration throughout the station as a particular factor. this may have been related to the position of the equipment, which should have been on one of the solar and cooling support spars, and not directly on a habitat module.
Anyways, it stuck in my mind because as I started reading the document, it just kept getting into deeper and more specific detail about every single aspect of the mission, when I finally arrived at the bolt movement section, I was completely taken aback. I wish I would have had the good sense to archive it for myself.
If you've got the time and better skills that my outdated google fu, you should be able to track it down. I want to say STS130 or STS135. Good luck. Let me know if you find it please.
What about the higher levels of radiation impacting mold growth?
At some point there were no bacteria which could decompose big fallen trees. More and more fallen trees increased pressure on the ones beneath and some time later we've got coal and diamonds.
Tomato in a clean-ish room in a space lab may have deteriorated the same way that McDonald's burgers do in a kitchen environment full of nasty bacteria and mold spores - not much.
The part about the ISS being the size of a six bedroom house really stuck with me. I always imagine it being a single cramped room. But now it’s a floating McMansion!
The ISS is larger (has more bedrooms) than I imagined too but using the "bedroom" descriptor is funny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#/m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_the_ISS_taken_dur...
And all that was transferred part by part to space, having to be usable right from the start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_...
I am not sure about this but I think something can be done, moreso from the people writing these articles. Maybe they can put a link to some website that explains rational measures.
Writing a "six bedroom house" gets the idea across more easily than 388 cubic metres of habitable volume. I have no idea how big 388 cubic metres is but I have a rough idea of what sizes houses are.
Communication is all about tailoring your message to your audience. On the NASA page linked to in the article, they use the house analogy in addition to the cubic metres - because they understand that rough approximations can sometimes be more useful information than hard figures.
In reality it would be larger since it's used in 3D.
You have 6 accessible surfaces. Most people only use their house in ~ 2 - 2.5 dimensions.
Lots of other savings. Like stacking anvils on top of eggs in the cupboard and you can push things through space more optimized without the constraints of gravity. ie doors and hallways only have to be tight circles, you'll gain a lot there.
Three orders of magnitude reduction in cost in thirty years is pretty good going for something that insanely complicated.
Wow that took a turn
tl;dr:
- Astronaut grew tomatoes, picked the first one, then lost it
- Spent a bunch of time looking for it, never found it
- Returned to Earth, blamed for eating it
- Other astronauts found it, but failed to provide photos or further details
- Original astronaut exonerated
- The end
I always thought it would make a good Friends-meets-For All Mankind TV series.
[1]: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;...
- plant them on Earth
- start a business selling space tomatoes
- ...
- Fund mission to colonize Mars in 5 years
https://parkseed.com/seeds-in-space/a/13/#:~:text=In%201984%....