A Mars Mission's Greatest Challenge: Radiation 417
daSeiz writes "A New York Times article explores the possible effects of prolonged radiation exposure in deep space. Surprisingly, very little is known about the subject. We'll need to find innovative new ways of shielding spacecraft from fraction-of-lightspeed interstellar rubbish if we're ever to spend much time outside our own magnetosphere."
Judging (Score:4, Insightful)
Comparing Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not to sound too bitter, but going to Mars seems like a much better way to spend billions than going to Iraq.
Bone loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Judging (Score:4, Insightful)
If your attitude was around when we were all still in Africa, we'd all still be there because developing clothing is just too darned hard.
Artificial Magnetosphere? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would the energy requirements be far to high, or maybe the diameter has to be a certain size to deflect solar radiation around the ship? This is all pure non-researched speculation of course, but I know that there's more than a few intelligent
Re:Judging (Score:5, Insightful)
Water (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and they should use nuclear engines like NERVA or Orion. That way the extra weight of the water is less important, not to mention that the craft may be able to reserve enough fuel for emergency maneuvers.
Not a horrible problem (Score:3, Insightful)
There's not much you can do about cosmic rays in a ship; you can't economically carry that much shielding, but luckily it's pretty low flux; a Mars mission would, by the estimates I've seen, raise a participant's lifetime chance of dying of cancer by 2%.
Re:Comparing Price (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Comparing Price (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Judging (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Judging (Score:4, Insightful)
as far as the moon base goes, there are some good things to be said about a moon base. I'd be happy if they at least made that their goal. messing around in low earth orbit has gotten us nowhere.
Re:Comparing Price (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, the billions we're spending now in Iraq had nothing to do with Iraqi lives. The original argument was to protect American lives and everyone else from the weapons of mass destruction Saddam was supposedly ready to unleash. If we had been serious about those 61,000 lives you mention, we could have saved many more of them for much less money if we had practiced a better policy in the middle east YEARS ago. But we didn't seem too upset about it then.
Anyway, this poll is much more trollish than I would like. I just want to say that, yes, those 61,000 lives are (were) more important than any Mars trips, but I think there could have been a much better way to save them and also spend our money on something more creative and less destructive. Anyone who says billions are better spent on war than on peaceful scientific exploration had better have some amazingly damn good reasons for war.
Re:Artificial Magnetosphere? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem of radiation does not go away once you get to the surface of Mars because, unlike Earth, has little, if any, magnetic field. Those nasty, high-energy solar particles just cascade through the thin atmosphere right down to the surface. You are going to have to bury yourself under the soil for protection.
What about the moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
If we do go ahead with the administration's somewhat-ridiculous moon base idea, we could just launch some carved lunar rock shields -- perhaps encased in a polymer to prevent micrometeor-induced fractures. Throw those off the surface of the moon for much less energy and attach them to the mars craft at Lagrange or in orbit. Get a slow but steady start helped by some gravity slingshotting and you're on your way to mars.
I'm sure there are slashdotters with a stronger grip on rocket science than I have (which is basically limited to F=ma). Is this feasible? Or would it make more sense to just pay for firing lead/water into space from earth?
Practice on the moon first (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Moon kooks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Demron? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mars Missions? ...No Way! (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point and Intrinsic Value (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the point of: Publicly Funded Art? Big Science? Pure Science? Exploration? Going to the Moon? Going to Mars? SETI? Falling in love? Climbing a Mountain? (last one's a clue)
You will find many "justifications" for such endeavors--many of which are to the scale that they must be publicly supported (funded) if they are to happen at all.
They are just that. Justifications. Rationalizations of a decision after the fact. All the justifications offered for these acts are BULLSHIT.
The reason we do these things is "because". Peroid. This is the concept of intrinsic value.
Think about this for a moment. If we do something--anything, we give a reason. I go to work to make money. I make money to buy things. I bought a car to go to work. But what do all these things get me? In the free time that I have when I'm done working, when I'm done driving, what do I do?
Love? Learn? Raise children? Why? What do these things get me?
Nothing except themselves. They have value because I say they do. Nothing more. There is no "purpose" for love. There is no purpose for "Going to Mars".
Sure, we got useful stuff--national pride (some think that has value), new technologies, etc. from our trip to the moon.
But that's not why we did it.
We did it because it was hard. And it would be cool to have done it.
That's what makes us what we are. The things we do "just because". Not because we have to or because they are a means to an end. Just because we think they would be cool to do.
Intrinsic value is by definition subjective. If there's no justification, then there's no logical argument I can provide that says the things I value are the things you value.
But, as a society, there are some "great things" we can do.
The challenge of doing a "great thing" is not the doing of the thing (solving the radiation problem). The challenge is getting enough committed people together--through social imperatives (taxes, congress) or consensus--to actually get up and do it
Why do you climb a mountain?
Becuase it's there.
Re:Mars Missions? ...No Way! (Score:4, Insightful)
All the diseases the poster mentioned are preventable: AIDS (safe sex, use clean needles, etc), SARS (everyone washing their hands properly being much more effective than face masks), malaria (sanitation), TB (sanitation), influenza (wash your hands, don't share telephones, keyboards, mice, etc., improved ventilation).
As for weaponized smallpox - I was vaccinated against smallpox as a kid. It's not like we don't have the technology to do this...
As for breast cancer - heart disease is still the #1 killer of women. And both heart disease and breast cancer are, to a certain extent, preventable as well, (diet, exercise, not smoking all improve your odds against both diseases, and breast-feeding also reduces the odds of breast cancer).
Overweight has just recently replaced smoking as the #1 health risk in the United States, and both these risks are totally preventable. We already have the cure. It's just that the majority are too fat, lazy, selfish, and stupid. So we're going to see the first generation where the children don't live as long as their parents. Not because of AIDS, or SARS, or an exotic disease, but because they choose not to exercise self-control over what they put in their fat, nicotine-stained mouths.
"We Have The Technology" (Score:3, Insightful)