A Head Full of Fluid and Burning Eyes: NASA Astronaut Talks about His Year Living in Space

Scientific American spoke with Scott Kelly about the hardships of life in zero gravity and what it was like coming back to Earth 

Onboard the International Space Station: NASA astronaut Scott Kelly in July 2015.

Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Scott Kelly is the first American to spend almost a year in space. The NASA astronaut lived for a record 340 days onboard the International Space Station (ISS) from 2015 to 2016. Like other astronauts, he endured the stresses of microgravity, cosmic radiation and “headward fluid shift,” in which blood and tissue fluid collect in the head. But Kelly’s experience was unique in that researchers painstakingly documented his physiology and cognitive performance while in orbit—and simultaneously monitored his identical twin brother, Mark Kelly, as an earthbound control.

The NASA Twins Study, a groundbreaking analysis of the effects of life in space, was published in April in Science. It revealed that Kelly underwent changes (which his twin did not experience) in his eyes, carotid artery, DNA expression and cognitive performance during the mission. Most measurements returned to preflight levels after he returned to Earth—although some of his cognitive scores worsened. Scientific American spoke with Kelly about the study, the difficulties of prolonged spaceflight and the implications for future long-term missions. An edited excerpt follows.

What were the biggest physiological challenges you faced in orbit?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


That headward fluid shift is the worst in the beginning. Your body adjusts to it over time, but it never adjusts completely. I always felt pressure in my head. Another thing that varied from high to too high was the carbon dioxide. When it was at its lowest, it was 10 times what it would be on Earth. When it was at its highest, it was about 30 times what it is on Earth. It would burn your eyes. I was able to tell what the CO2 level was pretty accurately without having to look at the measurement.

EDITORS’ NOTE: According to a 2012 NASA study, the ISS functions at higher than normal concentrations of CO2 “out of operational necessity,” but research supports these levels as safe.

What physical changes did you experience back on Earth?

In the absence of gravity, not only is your heart less fit, but your veins and arteries are also not as strong. And once you get back to Earth, all the blood just wants to pool in your legs. That lasted for weeks. I would stand up, and my legs would swell up like water balloons. I had rashes and hives on my skin whenever it had any pressure on it: on my butt, the back of my legs, my elbows. That was surprising. I was sore. I was tired for a long time. From a mental state, your schedule is so tightly controlled onboard the ISS—then, when you get back, you don’t have anyone telling you what to do anymore. You feel a little lost for a bit. When you don’t have that structure, it’s kind of hard to be motivated at first.

Why might your cognitive test scores have declined once you were back on Earth?

When you’re up there, and you’re doing tests a lot, just like anything else you get better at them. But when I got back, I wasn’t feeling great. Imagine showing up to your SAT with the flu: you probably wouldn’t do too well. I attribute a lot of my performance on those tests not necessarily to my cognitive ability but more to the other symptoms I had. Even though you might not have a cognitive deficit, the fact that you feel like crap makes it very hard to do those tests.

EDITORS’ NOTE: The NASA Twins Study researchers suggested that several factors, including Kelly’s hectic postflight schedule, may have contributed to the apparent decline in performance.

What does your experience tell us about longer astronaut missions in the future?

The researchers didn’t observe anything that would prevent us from going to Mars. Certainly the radiation is something we’ve got to deal with, although this wasn’t really an experiment on that. But if we’re going to go beyond Mars, we are going to have to start thinking about artificial gravity. I flew in space for seven, 13, 154 and then 340 days. The longer you’re there, the more symptomatic you are when you return. I couldn’t imagine coming back to Earth after being in space for many years.

Jim Daley is a freelance journalist from Chicago. He writes about science and health.

More by Jim Daley
Scientific American Magazine Vol 321 Issue 1This article was published with the title “A Year in Orbit” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 321 No. 1 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0719-16a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe