Too much radiation for astronauts to make it to Mars

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327266.100


FORGET the risk of exploding rockets or getting sideswiped by a wayward bit of space junk. Radiation may be the biggest hurdle to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and could put a damper on a recently proposed mission to Mars orbit.

A panel tasked by the White House with reviewing NASA's human space flight activities (New Scientist, 22 August, p 8) suggests sending astronauts to one of Mars's moons, Phobos or Deimos, among other possibilities raised in its report released last week (http://tinyurl.com/mbajav).

From such a perch, astronauts could use remote-controlled robots to explore the Martian surface and retrieve samples - from the planet as well as the moon itself - for later close-up study on Earth. This would avoid the need to develop expensive hardware to land humans on a body with substantial gravity, like Mars.

-snip-

But the insidious threat of space radiation in the form of galactic cosmic rays could keep astronauts confined much closer to home.

The rays are actually speeding protons and heavier atomic nuclei that rain onto our solar system from all directions. They can slice through DNA molecules when they pass through living cells and the resulting damage can lead to cancer.

People on the ground are protected by our planet's atmosphere and magnetic field, which also provide some protection to astronauts on the International Space Station. Lunar missions are short enough to keep radiation risks low, and the moon itself blocks half of the incoming particles. Crews on long journeys beyond low-Earth orbit would have no such protection.
-snip-
-------------------------------


looks like humans shouldn't go to Mars - send in the robots.

Which is why astronauts to Mars would likely be older people, 40's or 50's who aren't planning to have kids.

I gotta say I would volunteer, despite the radiation.

Or we need a capsule with magnetic shielding etc.

In the end, we will either figure out out to leave this planet and colonize another one in another solar system, or become extinct as a species.. Earth has a finite lifespan.

What a week though!!!

And if we're extinct, so much the better. 35 years ago, the future was full of hope and ideas.

These days, only maudlin wet wankers see fit to depress everyone with their glossy shows.

Flying mock dogfights in trainer aircraft.

As for extinct, think about it...

Us dems could go colonize one planet, and the repubs go colonize their own...

I'm kinda fond of this one. Let's find a Rapture planet (with a dying star) for the pukes.

But it'll be a couple billion years before the sun dies..

If a big rock or something else doesn't kill off the planet first.

Man, i'd hate to be in charge of honey bucket distribution in that scenario.

Seems like I recall hearing about the first paid for civilian trip to space by a millionaire.

You folks don't remember John Glenn going up at age 77?

The shuttle only pulls about 3 g's.

Pilots in fighters endure more than 9 g's

Even a prop driven trainer will do 6g's. That was about my limit at 40, and I wasn't in the best of physical condition. Training for g's helps as well.

A trip to mars wouldn't kill a person with radiation unless they got hit by a solar flare, it would just increase likelihood of cancer in the future, like exposure at Chernobyl. So you send older folks who won't have 60 years to develop cancer, and aren't going to have kids so no worry about birth defects.

Sounds like a trip to the 4th planet might give us a Fantastic Four.

He was 77 when he went on that ride, and the purpose was explicitly to study the effects of spaceflight on the elderly.

Lift off g's isnt a problem for people in the 40-50 age range. Alan Shepard was 47 when he went to the moon on Apollo 14.

Ask John Glenn about g-force killing anyone over 40 on lift off.

He may disagree.


Edited to add:
Hi Retired, how did I miss your post? Ah well... great minds and all.

i don't see why a person in their late 40s/early 50s who was past child bearing couldn't do it

handling the g-forces is not gonna be an issue at that age, it actually takes a couple, three more decades for the osteoporosis to really set in

i would not go if the radiation risk meant radiation sickness/leukemia in a few weeks or months but if it only meant i had an elevated risk 30 years later when i'm 80, i would be happy to give 'er a whirl

there are old dudes fighting in iraq (in their 40s and 50s) humping 60 pound backpacks, hard to believe those guys couldn't handle lift-off

Not sure why you think that would kill anyone.

It works - the magnetic field would work well to keep the high-energy charged particles away from the ship and crew.

The biggest problem is that it requires a shitload of power - the ship would have to have a nuclear reactor or some insanely huge solar panels to run the thing.

Of course, if you're gonna put a nuclear reactor onboard, might as well put on a VASIMR drive, and make the trip a hell of a lot shorter.

Earth has a definite life span, but what tells you Mars has a longer lifespan? If we're going to colonize other planets, it would have to be extra solar system planets, so might as well relax, wait a few thousand years, until we figure out how to build those Star Trek gizmos.

But I doubt we'll start colonizing another solar system without going to Mars first...

It's just a baby step, and we be learning to walk.

It was hypothesized that Mars did have one and at that time it also had a life sustaining atmosphere. Once the field was lost so was the atmosphere and the planet's water supply.

About 8rems per year. Now compared to earth which is about 0.3 rems (360mrems) that is a lot more but is is only about double that astronauts on the ISS receive.

8rems per year for a science mission lasting only a few months wouldn't be bad (1.5 rems for 2 months).
100 rems of long term exposure is about a 10% increased cancer risk.

Now long term colonization would either require:
a) accepting substantially higher cancer and other radiation damage rates
b) living 90% of the time below the surface
c) development of transparent structures to cut down radiation by 90% (bubble cities)
d) long term evolution where humans adapt to high radiation environment over thousands of years

And an underground facility once there.

described this very problem.

A two fold approach, first, store all your water around the hull. It provides both insulation and protection, then polarize the hull at all times, which would deflect another 30-40% of the particles, even at low voltage. The big problem he worried about was solar flare activity, which would overwhelm pretty much everything we can throw at it.

To give you an idea of how powerful a solar flare can be, solar flares have to punch through a HUGE FUCKING MOLTEN BALL OF IRON which rotates and thereby creates an extremely powerful magnetic field. That field is so powerful, that we can bounce radio waves of certain frequency off the field. (that is why short wave signals can go much further than the horizon) But, even with a HUGE FUCKING MOLTEN BALL's magnetic field, solar flares are even more powerful, powerful enough to scramble our electrical grid, fry computers, kill even hardened satellites, and destroy transformers, etc.

for society.

compared to a human? Do you even know the state of robotics?

advances in robotics... which would accrue more benefits for society. :)

that's the real question.

:rofl::yourock::rofl:

:hi:

I thought there was something fishy about buying the ticket out of the trunk of a car.

a few repubs.

I think they might have already been there.

I say we harvest ALL repuke and fundy religious brains - should be more than enough shielding, and we'd have a much better world - all in ONE shot!!!

if we could only figure out how to float them into a spaceship.

It brings them more glory and they would use it as a political tool.

Why do we want to go to Mars? Wouldn't it be better at this juncture in history to maybe spend the billions here on earth?

Other than the challenge of doing it, what does the average citizen on Earth gain by us planting a flag on Mars.

We've created quite a mess here maybe we should spend that money on cleaning it up.

Except for LEDs, mylar, the integrated circuit chip and thus the computer, freeze drying, communications satellite networks, structural fireproofing, the Global Positioning System, memory foam, and the countless areas of pure research that were advanced by both the missions themselves and the amount of money we poured into the scientific and engineering processes.

:eyes:

All those things were developed on earth, with human ingenuity and money.

--imm

They probably would have been invented by someone else at a later date, but then they would have arrived in a trickle over many decades rather than a flood as we experienced.

You could just as easily say something like, if the moon shot had not diverted resources, we might have found a cure for cancer. You really don't know what might have been invented. Seems like inventing things that are useful on earth has always been a good motivation.

Is there anything there that you can show wouldn't have been invented without a moon shot?

On edit: Mylar was invented in the mid 50s. I looked it up. I'm sure I can find other facts which would refute these claims.

More edit: Integrated circuit was perfected by Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments in 1958. Still no moon shot.

Still more edit: Communications satellites were proposed by Arthur C. Clarke in the 40s.

--imm

Among people who've been involved in science there's no question that the urgency, investments, and demands of the Apollo program massively spiked our technological development. Mylar was considered basically useless until NASA realized that it could be used in place of other materials in vacuum and near vacuum conditions. The integrated circuit was left unused--uneconomical compared to conventional electronic circuits--until the smaller, more efficient systems were demanded for spacecraft and satellites. And it was NASA launches in the 1960s that put the very first communications satellite into orbit.

Satellites don't go to the moon. I'd think it's more that money determines research priorities. They could have said, "We're givin' out money for a trip to the sun," and you'd have innovators lined up. Anyway, if we encourage unmanned exploration, won't that promote innovations in robotics and telemetry?

--imm

The fact that most of these things made it to the general public after the moonshots, rather then being super-expensive and something only Governments could afford.

They used so much that the price of creating came down, and it could find use in consumer products, which in the long run saved money and sped up science.

Do you know how large a common computer would be today if made of discrete components?

try 5 miles by 5 miles probably, if not larger.

So you think all that stuff is here because we sent men to the moon?

-imm

nobody here has said something most true

"necessity is the mother of invention, accidents are the father"

It does not follow, in your case, because we did not need something, that it WOULD be invented.

Between the two choices, I'll take mine.

Also I did not say that they invented everything, I said that they allowed them to come to a larger audience.

Maybe less time spent looking up logical fallacies that might apply, and more time spent reading would be helpful advice for you.

I took the time to look things up for you.....

Believe it or not, your life has probably been touched in some way by space technology. Since 1976, about 1,400 documented NASA inventions have benefited U.S. industry, improved the quality of life and created jobs for not just Americans, but around the world as well. From the early days of space exploration, primarily the apollo program helped change the way of life in America, especially in health care.

Top Left: A NASA developed chemical process was responsible for the development of kidney dialysis machines.

Top Right: The need to find imperfections in aerospace structures and components, such as castings, rocket motors and nozzles led to the development of a medical CAT scanner which searches the human body for tumors or other abnormalities.

Bottom Left: Astronaut health has always been a concern. Weightless conditions could cause physical deterioration, so a cardiovascular conditioner was developed for astronauts in space. This led to the development of a physical therapy and athletic development machine used by football teams, sports clinics and medical rehabilitation centers.

Bottom Right: A hospital food service system employs a cook/chill concept for serving food. The system allows staff to prepare food well in advance, maintain heat, visual appeal and nutritional value while reducing operating costs.

more at...

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

This thread is about spin-offs from the manned moon flight. The dialysis process referred to was developed in 2002. And we didn't have CAT scans in the 60s. And they didn't have much room for cardio-vascular conditioners on the moon trip.

So the implication that these things were developed for the moon missions are false. Some were developed for living in the International Space Station, which itself has no purpose, and now that it's built, will be abandoned.

Your post refers to inventions since 1976. How many moon missions were there after 76? Sure some things were a result of the moon mission. But you can't say they wouldn't have been invented without the moon program.

--imm

someone like JFK had announced a 10-year program to develop a fast train system beating those that were developed in foreign countries, or electric cars? The internal combustion engine is old technology that probably should have been replaced by now.

innovations??

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

VELCRO!!!!!

How did we ever live without it? :sarcasm:

VELCRO!!!!!

How did we ever live without it? :sarcasm:

Whoops...dup

Teach us a lot about this planet. So much of the technology that is used today that we take for granted came from the space program of the 60s and 70s, it is impossible to list in one message. We learned a lot about the formation of the Earth and our solar system from the moon rocks brought back. Studying other planets long distance have taught us a lot about the processes that have allowed life to develop on Earth and about the effects of the changes we have made in our ecosystem.

Much of what was done on the moon by men can now be done by robots, but someday humans will need to go themselves to Mars and other places in the Solar System. Robots cannot do everything we will need done to really understand what another planet is like.

However, I'm questioning an investment to send a man to mars at this point in our history.

In the 1960s we were a creditor nation, had a strong industrial base, and were not running trillion dollar deficits.

In 2009, our infrastructure on earth is collapsing, we have a climate change issue we need to put scientific minds towards etc. etc.

Resources are limited and we are not the country we were in 1960. We simply don't have the wealth we had than.

Think - if the ozone layer keeps degrading (we haven't heard much about it recently so I wonder what is happening to it now) the Earth may need shielding from radiation. The technology that is developed for a Mars mission might save life on Earth.

I used to sign onto all the petitions and push for a more active space program. Now I don't because there are so many more pressing problems facing our country and the world. But I do think that we need programs that push the limits of what humans can do. Space and ocean explorations are two areas that don't seem to yield immediate returns but that I believe will give us information that can be applied to other problems facing the world.

Money put into research and development has always paid off in the long run, even for totally abstract knowledge. Turning our back on space exploration would be a mistake, IMO.

We should go back to the moon first, and set up from there.

"Much of what was done on the moon by men can now be done by robots, but someday humans will need to go themselves to Mars and other places in the Solar System. Robots cannot do everything we will need done to really understand what another planet is like."


For now, until we get more information and learn how to explore space more economically, I do think robotic missions are the best way to go. But I do not agree with people who think that humans should never go into space or to other planets.

Only bits of metal and plastic and so on do. The money stays here in payment to contractors, support personnel, scientists and other workers. They then spend it on housing, food, clothing the same way everyone else does. And they pay taxes.

But you are wrong.

A tractor is capital. It is an asset, that is, it can be used to make money in agriculture or construction. It can be used to feed and shelter people. The people who make the tank are just as much consumers as the tractor people, but their product is destructive and hurts the environment.

--imm

Striving to reach the Moon, striving to reach Mars, plunging to the depths of our oceans, climbing to the heights of our mountains. These are, to me, what makes it worthwhile for us to exist in the first place. Just as worthwhile as creating music or paintings or sculpture or literature. These are what makes us human, and if humanity has any value, then these things, ALL of these things, must be encouraged to flourish.

Just my opinion.

I agree.

Great post.

Wire transfers only work on Earth.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition

Stages of Acquisition

In addition to the Rules, Ferengi recognize five Stages of Acquisition:

1. Infatuation — "I want it."
2. Justification — "I must have it!"
3. Appropriation — "IT'S MINE AT LAST!"
4. Obsession — "Precious!"
5. Resale — "Make me an offer."


Let's see how long it takes for this to show up in freeperland. :rofl:

There is a great deal to be learned by studying other planets, much of which can be applied to our problems right here on Earth.

i have it on reliable authority that there is no bank or ATM on mars

any money spent on space travel to mars will be spent on earth, it will go into the paychecks of scientists, engineers, etc. right here on earth, and it will provide good career-type jobs in a world where good career-type jobs are at a premium

every ph.D. working on a mars program is one less dude in his mom's basement playing world of warcraft and getting more embittered by his lack of future

A cave is nice.

Why do you want to wear clothes?

mud is better.

it's beaconing us on to Jupiter where there's this really cool obelisk orbiting the planet that will result in the next step in human evolution.

:evilgrin:

We evolved as part of the earth's environment, and to imagine it's a "new frontier" like Europeans coming to the New World is just silly.

Or "man wasn't meant to explore the ocean depths"?

If you want to get really technical about it, humans weren't meant to live in cold climates either, because we never evolved the heavy fur coats needed to survive the winters. But we did colonize those areas, thanks to our large brains and the beginnings of technology. The only difference now is that our technology has evolved since then.

Until you've lived through a -40F winter with windchills down to -60F, and 3 feet of snow on the ground, you can't truly appreciate what populations like the Native Americans went through, and how close to death you are at times like these. It took genuine skill and thought to devise ways to survive these harsh environments with no more than simple structures, hides, and handmade clothing.

I think that's the real reason the Norse kept invading the British Isles.

These new-fangled iron carriages are going to turn people into goo!

The money would have been much better spent on helping the poor in EUROPE!!!

Not so the reaches of space. My point is that to equate exploration on earth with exploration AWAY from earth is preposterous.

Do you know how many men died exploring the earth? How they died? Look up scurvy.

We have a hell of a lot better record with space then they did with earth.

50% of Magellan's men died in a single voyage.

The New World supports human life (we're living here now, right?)
Space does NOT support life. It requires massive resources just to keep a human alive.
We are a biological part of earth, not of outer space.
Therefore, to explore space as a possible dwelling place is not AT ALL the same as the exploration of the New World.

Remember they weren't looking for the new world when they found it.

It also was inhospitable, cost tremendous resources (allowing kings could afford to send fleets to new world) and colonies required nonstop support via never ending supply chains that stretched the limits of science and logistics for the time.

there was a carbon-based environment in which they had evolved. My point is that, Buck Rogers technology notwithstanding, humans are physically PART of the earth and cannot live elsewhere without bringing their environment with them. People who equate space colonization with earthly exploration are not dealing with this reality.

Perhaps when we evolve beyond and outside of our bodies....

Space is the pathway, not the destination.

The destinations are the terrestrial planets that we CAN live on.

We'd be away from our visible light spectrum, our gravity, our food and our beneficial bacteria, not to mention our atmosphere.

Don't worry we will take our bacteria if we try not too.

Atmospheres can be contained. Larged domed cities. Once large enough self sustaining colonies existed on mars it could be teraformed. The atmosphere thickened, greenhouse gases increased, the amount of trapped heat increased.

It will take hundreds if not thousands of years but it can happen.

The article says...

But only in the moons shadow, which is a very very small place relative to the distances. Even on earth, its affect is negligible, because the moon is rarely between the source of cosmic rays and the earths surface.

Statements like this remove all credibility from the article.

Where it would actually block half of incoming particles (assuming the particles are coming from all directions).

While standing on the moon you'd be in the shadow of half the cosmic energy except that from the sun...which would be most of the energy.

The reporter got it wrong.

There's also this OMG! quality to the story as if we'd not realized this problem until the day before the reporter did.

come from the sun's direction. The rest are ricochets.

For most of the surface of the Moon.

there's nothing humans can do on Mars that robotics can't do better.

than driving in Huntsville AL during rush hour. :)

That'd be better than robots.

:evilgrin:

Robots can be build to do specific tasks, but a man can do any task.

You can't build a robot to do all the experiments a man could do.

The rover only has about 5 experiments on there, so now they have to build another to send with more experiments. A man could do them all. It may cost a little more, but we would get back 10 years of rover data in less then 1 year.

Imagine a world with no Republicans :)

more Mars lovers then I expected

folks think a trip to Mars is a bad idea. And don't seem to be aware of the technological advances made because of the space program!

Keep trying 'til we get it right. (Or not. Just keep sending them anyway.)

Venus isn't called "Hawwwwwwt" for nothin...

Boeing has a patent on magnetic radiation shielding

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090084903

The military has adopted that thinking in using predators and robots to increase lethality of its surveillance and strikes while protecting US lives.

NASA does not want to give up its 'humans first' policy because it is so popular with the public, which helps keep its funding in place. But that policy is doomed.

There will always be a place for humans to do exploration in space, but not always first.

That's not exactly humans first. :-)

Don't get me wrong though, I think a human Mars mission is a publicity stunt.

Sure there's a lot we could learn but I think the money would be far better spent on a 3rd generation launch system that could significantly reduce the cost of getting poundage into orbit.

... and with advances in nanotechnology that breakthrough could come soon.

Another type of launch delivery system that deserves more funding is high altitude partial direct launch technology. Getting the payload 'lifted' to the lower stratosphere is the most costly aspect of the present system.

We will get there eventually... and the technology to make it happen will benefit all of us.

Space elevators being by far the coolest.

Even a rail-gun with a laser booster could massively drop the cost per pound for cargo. OK, I wouldn't recommend riding in one unless you have a lifelong desire to be about 1/4 inch thick but it could put a lot of supplies and components into orbit.

Anything that leaves the engine on the ground. That's the way to go. Once we have a real infrastructure in orbit and possibly something lunar, that's the time to go to Mars.

water is an excellent shield for radiation and crew will need water to sustain life.

You can't send 3, 4, 7 astronauts on a 9 months roundtrip mission without water.

If the water tank surrounds the ship then it can serve a second purpose as a radiation shield.

1) space elevator
2) water shielded space habitats
3) mars missions

Which is why we need to colonize the moon first.

Humans will be on Mars by 2040 or earlier.

I mean, I'm amazed we can even counteract the force of gravity with NASA's meager funding. But... How much lead lining would you need?

Man, we need a space elevator.

To assemble a Mars capable spacecraft, but it is certainly possible.

The idea, BTI (b4 teh innernetz), was to build a permanent Mars base and then start mapping the asteroid belt. The potential for mineral resources is still lustfully fantasized in some circles.

It would take a lot of asteroids to pay for itself. We need to find a pot of gold every once-in-a-while to keep the interest up.

Troo fact.

:*

Damn you, Monsanto. Or should I say Monsatan?

It's the only reasonable action when you consider how many people it kills.

So that's how it happens

you're bad. Very, very bad. :spank:

Sid

out of lead. End of problem.

mark:rofl:

Gold!

Talk about a place that sucks on Saturday night!


markO8)

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/radiation_shielding.html

Why doesn't it surprise me that NASA has been doing research into this problem. lol

I like how some people (the reporter) think they've discovered something that's the keystone to disallowing a particular endeavor, somehow overlooking that we have engineers whose only task is to solve this sort of problem.

Spacecraft can be designed with quarters surrounded by fuel and equipment.
Human can dig into the surface immediately on arrival for protection at Mars.
And advanced propulsion can reduce exposure time while between the planets.
Before humans make the voyage, however, the planet should be teeming with
robotic landers and rovers.

Exactly. It's better to send robots. Right now, humans in space are just a circus show. The Space Station is the ring, let's not waste money building a more expensive ring.

Is to have a circus show. Otherwise, the moronic public doesn't give two shits. They go back to watching "American Idol".

of this old place - I guess we ain't moving out for a long time.....

markO8)

I even went to college majoring in astro-physics (unfortunately, events prevented me from finishing). However, I've come to realize over the years, and moreso the past few years, that humans will never set foot on Mars, if even the Moon. Given time - lots of time - we could overcome problems associated with radiation transitting to Mars. We just don't have time. Why can't we get to Mars?

Numerous reports have been churning of late from inside the oil industry that the world has passed the point of peak global oil production and that the world is now most likely experiencing a decline in production of many other natural resources including rare metals, some of which may be needed in a Mars program. From an editorial published by Rigzone, a drilling rig and platform industry publication:





As world population coasts to an all-time high, more pressure on energy and material resources will continue to make the situation worse. Oil production may already have seen it's peak, aided by last summer's $147 per barrell price, at ~86.2 million barrels per day. Though the recession has relieved pressure on oil stocks and production, another oil shock is expected if and when the current recession recovers. Contemporary oil shocks occur when the global economy is thriving against a constrained supply. Picture it like gears grinding: economy booms and begins to grind against available supply (remember, "constrained supply" in this sense doesn't imply a shortage in the ground but actual inability to extract the oil fast enough to meet demand); economic gears sieze up; economy is repaired; gears begin to turn once again only to grind again as demand again surpasses available supply.

All this implies that we'll have much different priorities than concerning ourselves with a trip to Mars. The availability of these resources will become less and less as the years go by until, eventually - say a hundred years, civilization will have transitioned to more localized, more agrarian societies, with the remaining resources controlled by militaristic governments and the richest of the rich.

And, then again, who knows what the rich will do? Since they'll have conquered this planet, maybe they'll make a liar out of me and go for Mars next.

NASA has a guideline of keeping rems below a 3% cancer risk and based on current shielding that is about 200 days.

Now an 800 day mission in deep space (BTW I know of no mission planned that long) would be something like a 10%-12% lifetime cancer risk.

Anyone think NASA won't have 1000+ astronauts willing to risk that to be the first human on mars.

The article makes it seem like it is impossible when it is just costly (in terms of future mortality fo astronauts). Now a 12% cancer risk risk is a lot of rems but that is under 3 assumptions

1) mission is 800 days in space. faster engines could cut flight time down substantially.
2) no improved shielding. water is one simple solution that could cut rems by about 2/3.
3) NASA is unwilling to raise lifetime radiation limits to achieve the goal of a human on another planet in next couple decades. I think even a 20% lifetime mortality risk wouldn't deter those who feel it is man's destiny to colonize the stars.

This does illustrate why a "moon first" 30 year plan would be optimal.

The main source of radiation exposure is of course the Sun. A trip to Mars should actually REDUCE the average radiation exposure of the astronauts as they move further from the Sun towards Mars.

The Apollo astronauts were subjected to much more radiation than other astronauts and cosmonauts who simply orbited the earth in low orbit because LEO astronauts and cosmonauts were to some extent protected by the Earth's magnetic field.

This said there are a variety of things that could be done to reduce radiation exposure:

a) Crew quarters orientation - if oriented away from the sun, the bulk of the vehicle could be put between the astronauts and the sun increasing the shielding. This would help against all types of radiation but particularly against alpha particles.

b) Surrounding the crew quarters with water tanks and/or lining with graphite or boron would also increase shielding for the crew. This should shield particularly well against particle radiation like alpha, beta and neutron radiation

c) Lead shielding, while heavy, is certainly not out of the question if limited to specific areas of the crew quarters given that the space station will end up weighing around 360 tons when fully assembled. If the vehicle is assembled EOR (earth orbit rendezvous) through multiple launches, you could get enough shielding in place This would protect substantially from x-rays and somewhat from gamma rays.

d) Protective clothing, lead aprons, etc. would also help reduce exposure.

e) Magnetic field could be generated to deflect alpha and beta particle radiation. It would not affect neutrons or gamma rays or x-rays. This would require a power source but there are multiple options: solar, SNAP generator are the best.

The assumption is that any Mars mission would spend at least several months on the surface given the cost and trouble of going there. One obvious solution to reducing radiation exposure for the landing crew is to burrow underground. Any habitat on Mars should be dug into the surface and placed underground as much as possible to put as much rock and dirt as they can between the astronauts and the source of radiation (the Sun).

Doug De Clue
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Tech

From the article:

...human race confined to one planet?

and that he is a mean, despicable SOB.

Man up and send a chimp. :duh:

:D

The "impossible" claim comes from a 12% LIFETIME increased cancer risk.

That is for an 800 day mission at current technology levels.
If increased speed cut that down to 600 days, and improved shielding cut radiation by 1/3, and smart location of water storage reduced it another 20% the lifetime risk could be as low as 5%.

Anyone think astronauts would say "No I won't be the first person in the history of the human race to step foot on another planet" over a 5% increased LIFETIME risk of cancer?

I don't.

Thats one chimp I would GLADLY blast out of here.

Life support for a chimp is just as expensive as for a human, and they won't be able to do anything or report back. :hi:

--imm

is give up entirely.


After all, we're totally incapable of solving problems, aren't we?

:D



http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/09/09/tardigrade-space.html

Edit to fix link...

The robots have survived. It's certainly no simple matter but, I have no doubt our scientists can figure the protection necessary to eventually explore Mars.

I am a perpetual optimist when it comes to human ingenuity (even when politics interfere)!!! :bounce: