Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Watch: Rioters in London Clash With Police Over ‘Cleaver’ Terror Attack

Health

NASA Orders All Light Bulbs on Space Station Changed — But You’ll Never Guess Why

Dec. 6, 2012 11:38am Liz Klimas

NASA Invests $11.5 Million to Replace Light Bulbs on ISS to Improve Astronauts Sleep Habits

(Photo: AP/NASA TV)

Before we get into the “how many astronauts does it take to screw in a light bulb” jokes, let’s ask first why NASA is embarking on a mission to replace all the lights on the International Space Station.

Turns out they’re burned out — not the light bulbs necessarily (well, some of them are) but the astronauts. According to an article in Scientific American, regardless of all the pills they might pop, relaxation methods they employ and “sleep hygiene” classes they take, astronauts on the ISS are only getting an average of six hours of sleep each night.

NASA medical officer and flight surgeon Smith Johnston said these hours of missed sleep “adds up.” The astronauts are allotted up to 8.5 hours of sleep each night. Although the lights might not be the only problem — Scientific American notes floating in bed and constant noise among other factors — NASA is investing $11.4 million to change out the fluorescent bulbs to fix the problem.

In this image provided by NASA, astronauts Pam Melroy, George Zamka, bottom right,and European Space Agency’s Paolo Nespoli, sleep in their sleeping bags, which are secured on the middeck of the Space Shuttle Discovery while docked with the International Space Station, Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007. (Photo: AP/NASA)

The new bulbs they’ll replace them with, scientists hope, will allow the astronauts to operate on a normal circadian rhythm. Those developing the new light bulbs will capitalize on knowledge there is a specialized cell in the eye when exposed to blue light wavelengths will suppress melatonin production by the brain and therefore help one avoid sleepiness, whereas red wavelengths will do the opposite. The challenge comes with making the new light have the same “footprint of their predecessors,” as Katie Worth for Scientific American put it. According to Boeing project contractor Debbie Sharp, this means it would need to have more than 100 LED bulbs in a rainbow of color cloaked by a diffuser that makes them look like a panel of white light.

Here’s more on how they’re expected to work:

The fixtures have three modes, each with a subtly different hue: White light is for general vision; a cooler blue-shifted light promotes alertness (useful in the morning, during mid-sleep emergencies or amidst the schedule shifts that regularly slam their 24-hour rhythms from Houston time to Moscow time); and a warmer red-shifted light triggers sleepiness (helpful at bedtime). And LEDs have the additional bonus of being lighter, cooler, more durable, less toxic and more energy-efficient than fluorescents.

Boeing and its subcontractors, who are still tinkering with the final design, expect to deliver 20 lamps in 2015—right when the station will be down to its last spare bulbs. In the meantime the National Space Biomedical Research Institute has funded the labs of neuroscientists George Brainard at Thomas Jefferson University and Steven Lockley at Harvard University to test the lamps’ efficacy. Brainard is studying whether the lights indeed help people in simulated ISS sleeping quarters doze off faster. Lockley is investigating whether the lights—in combination with caffeine—help volunteers perform complex tasks during night shifts.

Elizabeth Klerman with Harvard Medical School’s Division of Sleep Medicine told Scientific American she foresees similar technology being used in Earthly light bulbs in the future.

(H/T: Popular Science)

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (74)

frust@ted
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:11pm
I really thought that it was going to be to protect the environment and cut down on there carbon footprint! That would have been too funny!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Worldsapart
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:03pm
  LEDs replacing flourescents? It is for the environment, they just didn’t want to admit that.
  
  Isn’t NASA dead?
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 10:05am
  World! They’re not dead! As a matter of speaking, the contract for these new lights has been awarded to the Muslim Brotherhood as part of the presidents “outreach program”!
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:20pm
  How many Liberals does it take to change a light bulb? None. They sit around in the dark until ten bureaucrats from the government show up to replace the wiring and the wall switch, then they sit around in the dark some more until FEMA relocates them to a trailer that has all new light bulbs. How many Conservatives does it take to change a light bulb? One.
  
  Report this comment
1776freedomofspeech
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:50pm
Poor babies. 6 hours is norm for life in the fast lane. Get used to it wimps!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- danbarlinmar
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:06pm
  tell me more about how your “life in the fast lane” is more intense than being in OUTER FREAKING SPACE!!!
  
  Report this comment
rvsample
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:27pm
oil lamps and candles should work

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HellAndBack
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:17pm
  Worked for Lincoln!!! LOL
  
  Report this comment
- ScarletRose
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:19am
  Where you don’t have to compete for enough Oxygen TO BREATHE
  
  HELLO???
  
  Report this comment
- Average_Joseph
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 8:00am
  Maybe the government can require someone to invent a fluorescent “oil lamp” or a flourescent candle.
  
  Report this comment
o2nine17
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:20pm
100 bulbs as stated? costing $140,000 each? outshines the Air Forces $3,800 toilet seats or the Army’s $300 hammers !!! No wonder we can afford 4 million dollar vacations for the first family !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheBigZ
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:56pm
  Er, there’s the bit about the shipping costs that you might want to consider there–UPS doesn’t exactly have a truck that goes that way.
  
  In all seriousness, it costs about ten thousand dollars to get one pound of payload to orbit (and has cost about that much all this century). Factor in the fact the packaging has to be robust enough so as not to crush a glass tube at a 25G launch acceleration and the fact that they’ll have to be replacing the ballasts and electrical components too (since these are multi-mode bulbs) and I can easily see a 14-lb per bulb launch weight.
  
  Seems to me the price is in the right ballpark, given the fiscal realities of spaceflight at this time.
  
  Report this comment
- k1ttt
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:19pm
  25g at launch is not realistic, even for just a cargo rocket. nor is 14# for a bulb. The bulbs will be LEDs which will not require a glass tube, so more likely they will go with lighter and more robust plastic. so maybe a few ounces per light would be more realistic. the harder part is they are going to have be tested for outgassing and flamability and probably a host of other things before being allowed on board. i would guess most of the cost is going to the studies to see if they actual do what is claimed, it must cost a bunch to have test subjects live in the simulates station just to see if they get more sleep at night!
  
  Report this comment
- bobad
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:23pm
  @BigZ, 25 G’s would make your head disappear and come out of your ****. They only experience 5-6G’s maximum if I remember correctly.
  
  Report this comment
- TheBigZ
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 4:16pm
  That “2″ slipped in there when I was thinking of max Mach numbers, not max G forces. =P
  
  That said, I don’t think 14lbs per is unreasonable when the article says they’re talking about replacing the fixtures as well in the quoted paragraph at the end. Certainly I’ve seen industrial fixtures weighing more than that (2′x2′ LED panels can clock in near 20 lbs)
  
  Report this comment
ONLY4UANDME
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:03pm
I thought we just spent trillions on solar. Yeah, we did. We just can’t make up our minds can we.
I think the problem is the name “solar”. Just not “designer” enough.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:26pm
  The new “bulb-replacements” are about 80%less current-draw which will make their limmitted battery draw time longer. But there still is a really small-current-draw-”bulb” called [panellescent] which creates no heat and has been used in aircraft-instrumantation-lighting for many years. The dimmer-version is used as lifetime-”night-lights” all over the world since the mid-50′s. It produces light the same way as the “lightningbug”…a cold-light which costs about 5-10cents-a-year when run continuously/24/7/365. I have a cabbin in Michigan which has about 12 panellescents and they run 24/7/365! The electric bill when I’m not there, still is about $8.50/month with or without them “on”.
  This is the minnimum-E-bill-per-month which is all “line-charges” and meter/line fees.
  
  Report this comment
NobleDar
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:54pm
Glad to see the failed space agency can still change a light bulb.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Go Glenn
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:06pm
  Here’s a scientifically proven way to help them sleep………use a d@mn mask.
  Once again, this proves the the only government solution to anything is to spend an enormous amount of money to accomplish something that a 3 year old could do with no effort…….turn off the lights.
  
  Report this comment
- thegreatcarnac
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 6:28pm
  Well….they really didn’t fail…obama ruined them like he has done everything else.
  
  Report this comment
grayling646
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:48pm
Liz, you should really offer proof if you’re going to accuse our astronauts of being pill poppers.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DZ-015
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:34pm
How much are these new three-way LED lights going to cost? Will they have household application as many things developed for the space program did? Witness the Dustbuster vacuum and the pressurized ballpoint pen that writes upside down.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- starman70
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:03pm
  The regiem will soon require that all household lighting be replaced with these. They will probably cost about $200 to the consumer and you will be ordered to remove all old incandescant and flourescent bulbs now in use. The dictator in Washington will issue the edict! YOU WILL COMPLY!!!
  
  Report this comment
Ducky657
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:14pm
This is amazing–the effects of fluorescent lighting was known years ago so most aircraft utilize LED technology. It makes no difference how intelligent an engineer is–if they don’t have a little bit of common sense and the ability to think critically (something that will be totally lost soon) you miss small things that make me question everything about this project. But they definitely are promoting Muslim acceptance–that is the important thing!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jethrObama
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:27pm
  Actually, I’m an electrical engineer… I can only stand fluorescent lights for 2 or 3 hours before the head-aches set in. I have ZERO fluorescent bulbs in my home, using only black-body sources like filiment bulbs and halogens. I save energy and light bulbs using soft start dimmers that can be programmed to lower levels and set to stay on for as much as a minute while I leave the room or just pass through.
  
  When the gov. announced intentions to get rid of filament based bulbs, I bought life-time supplies (which does not cost much when you rarely burn out bulbs due to soft start).
  
  I’m sure that the main initial objective that NASA thought about when putting in fluorescent bulbs was the need to conserve energy for maximum light…don’t be too hard on them.
  
  Report this comment
g123695
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:04pm
It’s amazing that we didn’t have these problems with an $.87 incandescent light bulb.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- grayling646
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:53pm
  87 cents? Where are you buying your light bulbs? I need some.
  
  Report this comment
- ONLY4UANDME
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:05pm
  I think G123 stocked up before the vote in congress. I did. I thought of it as “insider info”.
  
  Report this comment
MOLONL4BE
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:57pm
Umm, wouldn’t a switch work just as well?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BenFrank1791
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:48pm
There are some jobs Americans just won’t do.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:44pm
I wonder what it’s like to be way up there looking down at a rapidly decaying and dying planet ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Ducky657
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:06pm
  Huh?
  
  Report this comment
- carnivour
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:09pm
  Same as it did during the first manned space flight.
  
  Report this comment
- ArmedAndReallyPissed
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:16pm
  DUCKY : You know…..Economies collapsing, no Jobs, the Dollar becoming worth Toilet Paper, Communists running the USA, Infiltration of the MoBroHo all over the globe, Agenda 21, The Project…….Just a few minor problems we face. Things like that. But other than those types of things, were good.
  
  Report this comment
2conservative
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:37pm
It truly amazes me that they aren’t already using LED lights, just for the power savings.

Then, they can’t build 20 new bulbs until 2015? My word, it only took 10 years to get us to the moon from a dead stop….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- US-First
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:36pm
  Refits in space are not like refits in your home. They are either going to build a housing for the LEDs that has the same fluorescent footprint and can work from the same power supplied to that fluorescent light or they are going to build replacements for the fluorescent housings that have to fit in the same space and power supply. Everything on the ISS is built with maximal power savings, maximal safety and maximal space savings in mind to the point allowable by the work performed and the available technology when those modules were built. Comparing any refit on the ISS with something common on earth is ignorant.
  
  Report this comment
SUNTZU
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:26pm
Full spectrum light ,solar, It’s still free
How about a sun roof,and fiberoptics
might do the trick
Maw also talk to navy about lighting on their subs
If they use any of above,I want some cash…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
scrapadapolis
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:09pm
I understand the need,But did Obama approve the spending?Sure he did it’s another reason to over tax the rich and say we need the money.Watch this,Me as POTUS no freebees after 2 years,All soldiers coming back from the east,Border security with orders to shoot to kill.Mass deportations.Freeze all government spending.Lower pay for all gov employees to a national standard.Keep the tax rate a stable for 4 years till the coffers level off.Stay out of other countries business.disban the EPA,FCC,Relocate the UN to somewhere other than NYC.then rid ourselves of them.Raise tarriffs on every import,And tripple it for china.Unions will be disbanded and working men and women won’t need 15.00 an hour because they will nolonger have to pay union dues,hence more money in their pockets..Everything I just wrote is what real AMERICANS want.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BamaBryan
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 12:20am
  Add a few more three lettered government agencies to that list and you’ve got my vote.
  
  Report this comment
DesertPaine
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:06pm
I know a very smart dentist who has always insisted that this subject is a big deal. But I guarantee you he did not spend millions to outfit his dental building.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- carnivour
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:06pm
  My wife works nights, so I went to full spectrum FL’s years ago and it seemed to help her sleep cycles and reduce depression. This time of year she does not see natural light more than a few hours a day, and that’s all indoors, usually cloudy. It’s dark outside now when she’s leaves for work and when she returns.
  
  Report this comment
qpwillie
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:04pm
After reading the article, I guess the question was “How many light bulbs does it take to change an astronaut?”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GENEPAGLIARI
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:18pm
  Good one there, QPWILLIE, real good.
  
  Report this comment
AVATARBABY
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:01pm
” a cooler blue-shifted light promotes alertness.” If you’ve ever been at a K-mart during a blue light special, the herd of shoppers come out of their stupor and stampede like bison.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thenewhickschick
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:55am
Couldn’t we spend a few thousand on noise-cancelling headphones and sleep masks to cover their little astronaut peepers?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CLEttinger
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:47pm
  No, this is a government project. Saving money can’t enter into the fact they need to increase their budget this year so they can come up with another inane project to increase their budget in 2016.
  
  Report this comment
- Hillbillybone
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:11pm
  How much did NASA spend on a ink pen that would write in space?
  When a pencil would have worked just fine……..
  
  Report this comment
- koozbane
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:01pm
  hillbillybone, NASA didn’t spend anything developing a pen that rights in space. Both NASA and the Russians used pencils on their early flights, the Space Pen was developed privately, without government money, and once it was on the market BOTH NASA and the Russians bought them to use in space.
  The story about NASA spending millions to develop the pen isn’t true, even if it does make a good story.
  
  Report this comment
Tri-ox
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:52am
Well, obviously, the real reason is that obama and his muslims found the old style bulbs offensive and slanderous to their “prophet”. You know, NASA’s “primary mission” of “muslim outreach” certainly is getting expensive.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- helluvagoodgod
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:25pm
  Agreed. We (whities) could have never figured out how to get to the moon without the help of the genius contributions of a race where the average I.Q. is 90.
  
  Report this comment
- helluvagoodgod
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:33pm
  I forgot to add the blacks coming in last place with an average I.Q. of 80.
  
  Report this comment
sligresda
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:50am
it would be absolutely horrid to have to sleep in space. look how uncomfortable that looks!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NONCENTS
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:50am
So…..just how many astronauts does it take to change a light bulb? And how much does it cost *yikes!*

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
benrush
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:46am
When will we all “see the light” and realize that government funded “anything” is inferior to the private sector.

The government should focus on its core strength – “governing” and leave the business and economics to the private sector.

WE did it before (before 1913) and we can do it again. Those of you who disagree are welcome to cut yourselves loose from us and form your own country. leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. I want a workable sustainable system of governance not this Marxist bull-(ph)oney which drags down every economy its ever been tried.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- watashbuddyfriend
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:55am
  Amen, Ben!
  
  Report this comment
- paperpushermj
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:09pm
  Because it’s in Government nature to want to control as much as it can.
  
  Report this comment
FaithfulFriend
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:46am
Goodnight Grandpa. Goodnight John Boy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- gyro
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:14pm
  Night FaithfulFriend
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.