Space travel is hazardous to the brain

http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=39650

This is yet another reason to concentrate on ROBOTIC exploration

On Jan 1, 11:13*am, bob haller wrote:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=39650

This is yet another reason to concentrate on ROBOTIC exploration

Yes indeed, whereas extended space travels of 3+ months and especially
whenever on the surface of a naked little planet or most any moon like
ours that has such mascons plus a strong paramagnetic surface giving
off a great deal of gamma and hard X-rays in addition to being exposed
to its own local radiation elements that are within the surface
bedrock and otherwise derived from trillions upon trillions of
meteorites and thousands of asteroids having impacted its naked and
physically dark surface, as such would be quite imperative that rad-
hard robotics be utilized to the fullest extent.

However, once those mostly robotic TBMs get safely digging under the
surface, whereas then humans can safely join in, unless those tunnels
keep getting flooded or otherwise gassed by those pesky geode pockets
and layers of brine that TBMs should encounter.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#

On Jan 1, 11:13*am, bob haller wrote:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=39650

This is yet another reason to concentrate on ROBOTIC exploration

Yes indeed, whereas extended space travels of 3+ months and especially
whenever on the surface of a naked little planet or most any moon like
ours that has such mascons plus a strong paramagnetic surface giving
off a great deal of gamma and hard X-rays in addition to being exposed
to its own local radiation elements that are within the surface
bedrock and otherwise derived from trillions upon trillions of
meteorites and thousands of asteroids having impacted its naked and
physically dark surface, as such would be quite imperative that rad-
hard robotics be utilized to the fullest extent.

However, once those mostly robotic TBMs get safely digging under the
surface, whereas then humans can safely join in, unless those tunnels
keep getting flooded or otherwise gassed by those pesky geode pockets
and layers of brine that TBMs should encounter.

Here’s one more time as for those NASA/Apollo anomalies:
I happen to have direct 70 mm Kodak film and camera expertise, as well
as having personal hands-on with the taking of photographics at night
using but one source of illumination, and essentially those Apollo
mission photographics look nothing like anything I've experienced.

However, since never once any direct inspection of the original film
has ever been allowed, there’s simply no independently objective
forensic way of ever telling as to how those original frames were
obtained without the use of any artificial attributes, or as having
easily been later added or removed to suit.

There's also the matter of raw unfiltered UV that would have had to
have reacted with the surrounding naked surface comprised of multiple
reactive mineral elements (especially those of any meteorite shards),
and as also of those UV secondary/recoil photons that by rights should
have been coming off most everything of those Apollo missions (at
least some of which had to have been highly UV reactive). Oddly the
solar UV spectrum must have been turned off for those Apollo missions
that utilized unfiltered optics (other than a neutral polarizing
element that by rights should have made their local surface record as
somewhat 50% darker than otherwise viewed by a naked eye or that of an
unfiltered camera.

Also, there was not one official image that ever managed to record any
portion of a frame including the extremely bluish planetshine upon
that physically dark lunar surface, or upon any of their highly
reflective Apollo equipment wherever shaded from direct sunlight which
should have been depicted as having a measurable bluish amount of
secondary illumination.

They somehow also managed to make the nearby planet Venus go away,
especially on two of their missions, and otherwise because of my
personal photographic expertise, it seems that I have lots more to
question about those thousands of surface and even orbital obtained
Kodak moments, as many of such frames do not seem to depict as to what
a camera with unfiltered (full spectrum) optics and its sensitive
Kodak film should have recorded.

BTW; there was and still is an isolated terrestrial island that had
been privately loaned to DARPA and NASA, in exchange for acquiring
their UN status plus a few some odd million dollars with no strings
attached. This isolated private guano island was actually ideally
suited for large scale staging in the most restricted privacy.

This is not saying that a number of official items of our Apollo era
missions didn’t manage to get deployed upon that lunar surface, just
like Russia having managed to plant a couple of their robotic probes
on the surface.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#

:: http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3D39650
::
:: This is yet another reason to concentrate on ROBOTIC exploration

It's the same old reason as before. Cosmic radiation exposure.
At best, it's "another symptom", definitely not "another reason".

Just one example paragraph out of a post teeming with similar:

: Brad Guth
: Also, there was not one official image that ever managed to record any
: portion of a frame including the extremely bluish planetshine upon
: that physically dark lunar surface, or upon any of their highly
: reflective Apollo equipment wherever shaded from direct sunlight which
: should have been depicted as having a measurable bluish amount of
: secondary illumination.

Extremely *faint* (compared to the sunshine, and all the images
were in lundar day... making the earth less than full). Even the
famous picture of earth near the lunar horizon (which again would
make the total illumination per square meter low) has the earth
only a bit beyond half-full.

"Physically dark moon" and similar are nonsense-phrases Guth likes to use.
It actually refers to reflectance. And the reflectance doesn't matter,
since it's failing-to-reflect both sunshine and earthshine. It's not like
sunshine doesn't get reflected in to the camera and earthshine does. And since the
sunshine would fade out any earthshine, the only chance you'd have is if
a) you had a spot that was in shadow from sunshine but not earthshine,
and b) you for some bizarre reason exposed the picture to make the
shadow the center of the grey scale, and severely overexpose all the
rest of the picture. And even THEN, since when you print photos,
the color balance is most often calculated wrt the ambient light, you
wouldn't see it if the shadow was photographed up close, which is the
only reason you'd expose it for earthshine.

Further, of course, why should the earth be all *that* blue?
There are such things as clouds, you know.

Basically, there's no particular rationale by which a reasonable
person would expect blue illumination should be apparent in that
situation. Not even "it should have shown up in some of them",
since in fact they'd be taking pictures of well-illuminated objects,
and setting exposure for them, rather than trying to photograph shadows.

The rest of the paragraphs, of course, are no better.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=39650

This is yet another reason to concentrate on ROBOTIC exploration




A problem, yes. A showstopper no.

Hell, explorers on Earth risked much worse.

Hell scurvy was an issue for centuries, yet didn't stop the British Empire
(among others).

And the honest truth is, this is an "easy" problem to solve. Mass.

The dirty little secret to Mars or anyplace else is simply "throw enough
mass at the problem".

The limiting factor then becomes cost. Which SpaceX and others are working
on solving.

So, yeah, most likely we won't be going to Mars in a tin can like Apollo
went to the Moon. So if it requires 6' of "concrete" the solution is...
ship up 6' of concrete. (though most likely you'd solve the problem with
food stores and water and the like. An already suggested possible
solution.)

Thanks for the sky is falling tidbit today though.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

A problem, yes. *A showstopper no.

Hell, explorers on Earth risked much worse.

Hell scurvy was an issue for centuries, yet didn't stop the British Empire
(among others).

And the honest truth is, this is an "easy" problem to solve. *Mass.

The dirty little secret to Mars or anyplace else is simply "throw enough
mass at the problem".


adding lots of mass as radiation shielding for a mars mission just
raised its already astronomical cost, and ended the chance of using
chemical propulsion.......

nuclear propulsion can cut the transit time dramatically. what will
likely occur is accelerate the entire way to mars with a dip in the
mars atmosphere to delerate before landing....

meanwhile we can today send unmanned affordable rovers to
mars........

or wait forever for manned missions.

it would be really bad to send astronauts to mars and have them arrive
with even minor dimentia, which could lead to accidents.......

and have the mars astronauts return impaired by radiation exposure and
cancer......

just a bad idea, till we overcome all these problems.

has anyone studied the cancer rate for astronauts? a good many
appeared to die from cancer, is it over the general population rate?

: bob haller
: nuclear propulsion can cut the transit time dramatically. what will
: likely occur is accelerate the entire way to mars with a dip in the
: mars atmosphere to delerate before landing....

Um. No. What will likely occur is to accelerate half way,
decelerate half way, and then descend through the atmosphere.

( "Half way" not necessarily being precise, but accelerating all the
way would be disastrous. )

( "Dip in mars atmosphere to decelerate"... yeesh. )

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:13:32 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=39650



This is yet another reason to concentrate on ROBOTIC exploration

CAT scans of the brain are harmful. The issue does bring to mind
the issue of shielding. Not only passive and also active shielding.
Clearly a huge battle ship sized vessel would the ultimate'
fix, IMO. Perhaps robots could build the vessel from asteroid
materials?

Who stole the ship? Self aware robots, of course...........Trig

On Jan 1, 9:28*pm, Nun Giver wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:13:32 AM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=39650

This is yet another reason to concentrate on ROBOTIC exploration

CAT scans of the brain are harmful. The issue does bring to mind
the issue of shielding. Not only passive and also active shielding.
Clearly a huge battle ship sized vessel would the ultimate'
fix, IMO. Perhaps robots could build the vessel from asteroid
materials?

Who stole the ship? Self aware robots, of course...........Trig

I like the idea that floated around awhile ago where a rugged transhab
would inflate and act to slow a incoming vehicle. picture a HUGE
ballon trailing the ship.

of course you will laugh but then again you laughed at air launch of
spacecraft, but strato launcher is being built today