Cosmic Rays Could Kill Astronauts Visiting Mars 722
jvchamary writes "Given the recent stream of reports of 10th planets and the relative success of the NASA Discovery mission, it might again be time to get excited at the prospect of visiting the Red Planet. Unfortunately, New Scientist reports that Astronauts traveling to Mars would be exposed to so much cosmic radiation that 10% would die of cancer."
Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:3, Insightful)
They probably meant "also", but seriously, doesn't *anyone* proof-read anymore?
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:3, Informative)
Doug
Men get breast cancer too. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whoa, that's gotta suck (Score:3, Funny)
Easy Solution (Score:2)
lead is 60% lighter on Mars (Score:2)
Re:lead is 60% lighter on Mars (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy Solution (Score:2, Funny)
impractical, to say the least (Score:5, Interesting)
I know you're joking, but I think a number of slashdot readers are thinking, "yeah, why can't they just shield them".
I'm not sure I see the point of even going to Mars in the first place; like Kennedy's moon trip, going to Mars will get us nothing. Things are just too impractical to get anything useful done on either planet. The futurists all argue, "well, SOME day it'll be practical". Wasn't this the same group that predicted we'd have, ten years ago, flying cars, transporters, faster than light travel, etc?
Re:impractical, to say the least (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine the technology that a "Mars race" could spawn? New kinds of environment control. New kinds of waste scrubbing technologies, new kinds of filtering and recycling, etc... It could be big.
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, of course, that it's not just the scientists that have to be on board, but the funding as well. Funding only comes when there is a serious problem that enough people want to address.
How exactly do you plan to get all the legislators, corporations, and stockholders to all agree to this massive R&D effort?
Re:impractical, to say the least (Score:3, Insightful)
heck, why cant we use an ablative shielding in a super large "jiffy pop" bag behind the craft? a chemical reaction that creates a large metallic "sponge" with lots of crevices and surfaces to slow down or stop that radiation? if you have a crap load of surfaces (bubbles in the metallic sponge) your radiation
Re:impractical, to say the least (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:impractical, to say the least (Score:3, Interesting)
Curing cancer is pretty blue-sky compared to current methods of treating it. In order to do this (and by curing, I mean to have one procedure which eliminates all forms of cancer) you would have to create a comprehensive method for repairing all genetic damage and blocking telomerase from making cancer cells immortal and not sterilizing males in the process - telomerase is also how testes can produce 500m sperm every day for your entire adult life. That's still quite a ways off.
Of course, I'm not saying y
Yah, but lead costs $, Mars mission is unfunded (Score:2, Flamebait)
In fact, many things that don't have to do with Mars have become problems, because Mars has been leaching dollars from other programs. So, for example, the Hubble Space Telescope, the single most scientifically valuable instrument in space, has become too expensive to re
Even easier solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy Solution (Score:2)
(I'm just being silly, don't mind me
uhm, I don't think there will be much ping-pong (Score:4, Informative)
If the gamma photon gets through the lead (and it usually's got lot of momentum/energy), it'll get to the person and have some probablity of hitting one of the atoms in the person (resulting in the atom decaying and causing ionizing radiation damage). Since a person is usually thicker than the shield, the probability of hitting an atom in the person's body is much higher than hitting an atom in the lead shield. For alpha and beta radiation, they are charged and also usually have lower energy/momentum and as you mentioned can be mostly stopped with thin layers of material...
And cosmic rays (which mostly originate outside the solar system, but some come from the sun) are about 10-1000x more energetic than typical gamma rays (since both cosmic and gamma rays are techically photons they are only distinguished by energy level anyhow, a rose is a rose).
As for slowing down these highly energetic photons, well, there's not much a lead plate in a space-suit (or in a space-ship) is gonna do about that. Particles with that much energy/momentum aren't easy to stop with a few inches of any material, but if a "peice of radiation decided to stop", the photon would have zero rest mass and you wouldn't notice it (except for the residual path of damage it made in the attempt to stop)...
For current astronauts "near" earth, they of course have this big shield that protects us from about 1/2 of this radiation (the technical name of the shield is called earth), for someone far away from a big planetary body to shield them, they'll get at least a double dose of cosmic rays. For those of us on earth we get protection from both the earth on one side and atmosphere on the other, but of course mars's atmosphere is thinner (and doesn't have any ozone, although there may be some other thing there that helps)...
Re:Easy Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Case and point: The best way to shield against solar radiation is high atomic mass materials. Even moderate materials, such as aluminum, should work quite well if you plate it on thick enough.
But what happens when GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation) strikes that shielding? You often get bremsstrahlung ("braking radiation") - the single particle is instead replaced with a shower of much more dangerous particles. Even worse, these particles are released partway or even all the way through the shielding.
The best way to shield against GCR is hydrogen in huge quantities to decelerate the particles - this generally means either your fuel or plastics in the skin. But that doesn't shield well against solar radiation. In short, what you end up needing is a complex layered system. The exact design? That's still a wide-open question. We know we can pack enough aluminium to stop solar-radiation-only (including a small shelter for storms) without having too heavy shielding requirements. Factor in bremsstrahlung, however, and it's a wide-open question.
By the way, to those who suggest "active shielding" (creating a magnetic field around the craft to deflect radiation) - studies show that it won't work to stop GCR (only solar).
Re:Easy Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Effects of Cosmic Rays (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Effects of Cosmic Rays (Score:2)
Re:Effects of Cosmic Rays (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Effects of Cosmic Rays (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Effects of Cosmic Rays (Score:3, Funny)
That's Easy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's Easy... (Score:2, Funny)
Risk v. Reward (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Risk v. Reward (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, option three is to do both and feel like you're in Cowboy Bebop.
Re:Risk v. Reward (Score:4, Funny)
Well, we can safely assume that it will be at the end of their lives.
Re:Risk v. Reward (Score:3, Interesting)
Radiation Proof suits? (Score:2)
Re:Radiation Proof suits? (Score:2)
Re:Radiation Proof suits? (Score:2)
Those suits don't even completly protect from the small nuclear sources on the earth, let alone a whole fucking sun+stars+everything else in the universe. If it was such an easy solution, why do you think people are worried about it?
Re:Radiation Proof suits? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, it is possible to design ships which will shield passengers from the worst of the rays, but these tend to be prohibitively heavy (= prohibitive amounts of fuel) because of all the additional shielding.
The best alternative I've seen yet were plans to build a ship where all the water and other supplies were stored around the outsides of the ship, and the actual crew living compartment was a small space right in the middle - this uses water and fuel (the bulkiest of the supplies) as additional shielding, but it still carries a much elevated risk of irradiation and/or cancer than staying put on earth.
Is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
I think they'd also have to go through the Van Allen radiation belts which could also be a concern. Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon was impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.
Apollo had timed things however to make it accross while radiation was at a minimum. However, if they'd be on such a long trip -- timing will have to be a lot more precise.
Short of hauling up lead plates, I don't know what they'll do.
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't understand half the math in The Case for Mars [amazon.com] but the author explains in detail how the route could be planned to be both low cost and safe from radiation.
I need to read that again...
Re:Is this news? (Score:2)
Space concrete. Lots of it.
Re:Is this news? (Score:3, Interesting)
The first reason you want a moon base is to study, learn to deal with and minimize the radiation exposure.
"Short of hauling up lead plates, I don't know what they'll do."
Put the crew compartment inside a water tank, since you are going to need the water anyway.
Build shields out of lunar regolith since its gravity well is smaller, though you need to have
Ten percent would die of cancer (Score:2)
-carl
Sign me up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sign me up (Score:2)
On the bright side. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, what about the first europeans to the Americas. They were at least as likely to dye from malnutrition during the trip, not to mention all the hardships they faced when they got there. That is what it means to be a pioneer - to take risks and pave the way so others after you can go more safely.
Re:Sign me up (Score:3, Insightful)
And heck- if I was dying of a disease that was going to kill me in 5-8 years anyway- what's to lose?
Older Astronauts (Score:3, Insightful)
Careful with those estimates (Score:5, Interesting)
Others suggest more radical solutions might be needed. "Radiation exposure is certainly one of the major problems facing future interplanetary space travellers," says Murdoch Baxter, founding editor of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. "Unless we can develop instantaneous time and space transfer technologies like Dr Who's TARDIS."
MMPP (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I'm sure that there are thousands of people who would line up, despite that 10% chance of a disease that some of them will get anyway. I would.
Go to Mars, keep working on cancer cure. Everybody wins.:-)
A partial solution in the article (Score:4, Interesting)
So even if they cannot solve the cosmic radiation problem entirely, there is a possibility that could get them safely to Mars and back. Of course first we'd need that Moon base I've been reading about in SF stories written as far back as forever...
Cancer? Not likely. (Score:2)
Hope they never make a movie about
Or... (Score:2)
10%, big deal (Score:2)
Re:mod parent up (Score:2)
Maybe that's what I should put on my job application to NASA: "I desire a position in your 'space program' because I want to pick up chicks."
Send old people. (Score:2)
Re:Send old people. (Score:2)
Re:Send old people. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think any first travelers to Mars would have far more impressive ways to die than a 10% chance of radiation damage. The ship could explode, they could run out of food, they could hit any of the various bits of rock out there, they could get abducted by the aliens that live on the other side of the moon, they could slip and fall while getting out the shower cracking their skulls open, etc.
Re:Oh crap. (Score:2)
Re:Oh crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
We also never had a ship more than half a week of traveltime away from earth.
Food managment and psychologial stability becomes a MAJOR problem if we are talkin in years of traveltime.
Just how much shielding is needed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, though, does anyone know just how much material is needed to block these rays? Specifically, if a space habitat were constructed (along the lines of an O'Neill cylinder, for instance), how many meters of rock would we require on the outer surface to make the place long-term habitable?
Re:Just how much shielding is needed? (Score:2)
This is not news of course and smart people have been working on the issue for a number of years. Two interesting links:
A short writeup [wpi.edu] of the issue (PDF alert)...
A recent breakthrough [theengineer.co.uk] announcement...
2.26 sieverts... this is huge (Score:2)
Interesting. However, that this is 2.26 sieverts for the total mission. Usually, you get nausea, etc as part of the acute radiation syndrome, assuming that you are getting those in a few hours.
What kind of propulsion? (Score:5, Informative)
Fraught with Danger.. (Score:2)
-cosmic space rocks
-cosmic lack of oxygen
-cosmic freezing
-cosmic burning
-cosmic vacuum
-cosmic alien species
-cosmic cowboy neil
hey! its a dangerous universe!
Seems like there are numerous solutions to this (Score:3)
For mars habitation, build a base underground?
For the journey, build the spacecraft out of very, very thick material? Not some exotic material, just a thick layer of rock would suffice, yes?
use our nuclear generators to create a massive magnetic field around the spacecraft.
It must be possible to overcome these problems. After all, we are traveling on a spaceship right now, and it's doing a pretty good job of shielding us from radiation.
Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria (Score:2)
So, out of 10 astronauts, one dies of cancer that he or she wouldn't have gotten had she or she stayed at home.
For each astronaut, there's a 90% chance of suffering no ill effects from the increased radiation exposure. (That is, they'll get to die of a heart attack, stroke, of an injury after a fall, in an auto wreck, or of a cancer they were going to ge
Exploration has always been dangerous (Score:2)
What's with the penchant for making it safe and sanitary? Those should be long-term engineering goals, not short term requirements for pursuing exploration. If it always had to be safe and comfortable, Lewis & Clark would
Simple solution (Score:2)
(Hey, I lived there for 3 years and most people would choose to risk terminal cancer than stay)
One solution to two listed problems (Score:2)
loss of fertility and genetic defects in their children
They could always get their eggs/sperm sampled and frozen before the trip.
The Face on Mars could swallow you whole (Score:2)
And what ever you do DON'T LET DOVES LOOSE. It could start a War!!
Just when you find out it's safe to swim... (Score:2)
BTM
Cue the drum rolls (Score:4, Funny)
For once I'm glad I have a tinfoil hat!
(cue rimshot)
Lead Capsule (Score:2)
We need methods to get tonnage of materials into space, that's all.
When that gets solved, we'll get another article on lead poisening and space travel
I dont belive this (Score:2)
Besides - the two best sources of technological improvement: war & space travel. Maybe they'll invent the anti-cancer pill finally.
Send John Glenn! (Score:2)
I know (Score:2)
More Cancer Research (Score:2)
Tang and the cure for Cancer...what the Space Program is all about!
What is the percentage for here (Score:2)
Easily solved problem (Score:2)
Why don't they just go at night?
One In Ten? Sweet! (Score:2)
Sun protection not a big deal (Score:2)
Cancer rates (Score:2)
The trip to Mars radiation doesn't seem insurmountable.
Radiation Risk (Score:2)
Its "Tin Foil Hat" time! (Score:2)
1) They're not illegal aliens until after they abduct me.
10% isn't bad compared with earlier voyages (Score:5, Interesting)
At that point in the voyage, Cook had lost no men to scurvy, a remarkable and unheard-of achievement in 18th century sea-faring. He forced his men to eat such foods as citrus fruits and sauerkraut -- under punishment of flogging if they did not comply -- although no one yet understood why these foods prevented scurvy. Unfortunately, he sailed on for Batavia, the capital of the Dutch East Indies, to put in for repairs. Batavia was known for its outbreaks of malaria, and, before they returned home in 1771, many in Cook's crew would succumb to the disease, including the Tahitian Tupaia, Banks's secretary Herman Spöring, astronomer Charles Green, and the illustrator Sydney Parkinson.
Would it be that much worse to be afflicted with cancer in the 2000's than with malaria in the 1700s? At least we have morphine now.
The suggestion that brain ailments might afflict spacefaring explorers strikes a familiar chord as well:
Cook returned to Hawaii in 1779. On February 14 at Kealakekua Bay, some Hawaiians stole one of Cook's small boats. Normally, as thefts were quite common in Tahiti and the other islands, he would have taken hostages until the stolen articles were returned. However, his stomach ailment and increasingly irrational behaviour led to an altercation with a large crowd of Hawaiians gathered on the beach. In the ensuing skirmish, shots were fired at the Hawaiians and Cook was speared to death.
Another factor to keep in mind is the motivation of the sailors. For one thing, conditions at home didn't offer much better chance at longevity. But perhaps more importantly, Captain Cook believed in the medicinal value of large quantities of beer [nih.gov]:
The custom of allowing British seamen the regular use of fermented liquor is an old one. Ale was a standard article of the sea ration as early as the fourteenth century. By the late eighteenth century, beer was considered to be at once a food (a staple beverage and essential part of the sea diet), a luxury (helping to ameliorate the hardship and irregularity of sea life) and a medicine (conducive to health at sea).
It sounds like we won't be exploring Mars until we have a population of would-be explorers that is 1) worse off here than in space, 2) led by a captain with a penchant for the lash, and 3) drunk off their arse.
Re:10% isn't bad compared with earlier voyages (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably a positive thing. Anyone who thinks we should just risk the 10%, please volunteer your children (or yourselves) now.
An even bigger problem with this type of situation is that people cannot conceive of a situation until they have lived it.
Most
Don't do anything, it'll give you cancer. (Score:3, Insightful)
With 1960 technology it wouldn't have been possible to go to the moon. But with 1969 technology, it sure was. In 2005, we might lack radiation shielding that makes interplanetary distances hard to traverse without killing you 50 years from now. But in 2015, it might very well be easy to have lightweight material shield you adequately.
It's a conspiracy, I tells ya! (Score:3, Informative)
It's an interesting theory, but also one which must be answered before long term/distance space travel will be possible. Or even short term travel, if the conspiracy theorists are to be believed.
Mars surface radiation is nearly as bad as space (Score:3, Interesting)
One of NASA's Design Reference Missions to Mars involves a total mission duration of 900 days with a 500 day stay on the surface. This mission would expose the crew to more than their allowable lifetime radiation dosage. Another mission profile involves a 435-day duration. Both of these missions involve a year's round trip travel time, and virtually doom the crew to early cancer deaths after their return to Earth.
Gaseous Core Nuclear Rockets would make Mars missions truly feasible. For reasons discussed in detail here, [lascruces.com] here [lascruces.com] and here, [nuclearspace.com] among other places, GCNR rockets would get a mission to Mars and back in 270 days, with 7 months travel time and 60 days on the surface. Additionally, the GCNR rocket would have huge carrying capacity, enough for the craft to carry a foot-thick water shield in a double hull. Such a ship would reduce the crew's total radiation exposure to about 1/5 of the 435-day mission and 1/10th of the 900 day mission. The water layer would also act as a giant passive heat sink, eliminating the need for a complex refrigeration system. It would also be a self-sealing micrometeorite shield -- the outer few inches of water would freeze, and if a micrometeorite punctured the hull the escaping water would refreeze over the hole immediately.
Re:Anyone Know this Number? (Score:2, Informative)
Send me up there.
Re:Someone correct me please (Score:2)
You want some sort of semi-zombie on Mars with you? Well do you?!
Re:Someone correct me please (Score:2)