Radiation hazards in a trip to Mars

The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

jacob

On May 30, 2:41*pm, jacob navia wrote:
The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used..
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

jacob

At solar minimum, it's survivable as long as our frail DNA isn't too
old or otherwise compromised, multiple steroids are consumed and
banked bone marrow is available. Perhaps consuming and/or injecting
micro-fine gold dust could help.

jacob navia wrote:
The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Shouldn't they have said "would?" Interestingly enough, that is what
one story said:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...with_radiation

Initial research into the measurements shows that the radiation
exposure on a trip to Mars, using current shielding technology,
would exceed NASA's career limit for its astronauts.

I am assuming this is the source press release:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-183

And here is a link on science.com:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/34...8-efac82b3b2e7

Which has as the abstract:

The Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft, containing the Curiosity
rover, was launched to Mars on 26 November 2011, and for most of
the 253-day, 560-million-kilometer cruise to Mars, the Radiation
Assessment Detector made detailed measurements of the energetic
particle radiation environment inside the spacecraft. These data
provide insights into the radiation hazards that would be
associated with a human mission to Mars. We report measurements of
the radiation dose, dose equivalent, and linear energy transfer
spectra. The dose equivalent for even the shortest round-trip with
current propulsion systems and comparable shielding is found to be
0.66 ± 0.12 sievert.

Am I correct in assuming one can either stay light and seek to go
fast, or stay slow and seek to have lots of shielding (or I suppose,
preferably go fast and heavy)?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On May 30, 7:45*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:
quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote
This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.
Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Shouldn't they have said "would?" *Interestingly enough, that is what
one story said:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...uriosity_prove...

Initial research into the measurements shows that the radiation
exposure on a trip to Mars, using current shielding technology,
would exceed NASA's career limit for its astronauts.

I am assuming this is the source press release:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-183

And here is a link on science.com:http://www.sciencemag.org/content/34...t?sid=bcb83d5c...

Which has as the abstract:

* * The Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft, containing the Curiosity
* * rover, was launched to Mars on 26 November 2011, and for most of
* * the 253-day, 560-million-kilometer cruise to Mars, the Radiation
* * Assessment Detector made detailed measurements of the energetic
* * particle radiation environment inside the spacecraft. These data
* * provide insights into the radiation hazards that would be
* * associated with a human mission to Mars. We report measurements of
* * the radiation dose, dose equivalent, and linear energy transfer
* * spectra. The dose equivalent for even the shortest round-trip with
* * current propulsion systems and comparable shielding is found to be
* * 0.66 ± 0.12 sievert.

Am I correct in assuming one can either stay light and seek to go
fast, or stay slow and seek to have lots of shielding (or I suppose,
preferably go fast and heavy)?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

nuke engine is obvious solution, this is why bolden stated publically
that chemical rockets cant work...

"jacob navia" wrote in message ...

The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip to
mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

What is established beyond a reasonable doubt? That radiation COULD be an
issue (which is what your snip says?)

NO ONE HERE argued otherwise.

So I'm not sure what you're claiming is established. Do we have a better
baseline now, yes.



jacob



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

nuke engine is obvious solution,





No. WATER is obvious solution.

The problem with water is that it might leak. So ice perhaps or a graded shield composed in part of boron-impregnated plastic on the inner side.







this is why bolden stated publically

that chemical rockets cant work...





Bull****. You can't even come up with a credible source that shows he

said it, much less a credible source for WHY he said it (if he did).


A liquid methane and oxygen powered rocket? "Feed lots for Mars."




--

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the

soul with evil."

-- Socrates

'The way of a man is right in his own eyes but the way afterwards is
one of a premature demise'


~~King Solomon

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:55:36 PM UTC-7, bob haller wrote:
On May 30, 7:45*pm, Rick Jones wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip

to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote

The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal

Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed

NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.

end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in

this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.



Shouldn't they have said "would?" *Interestingly enough, that is what

one story said:



http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...uriosity_prove....



Initial research into the measurements shows that the radiation

exposure on a trip to Mars, using current shielding technology,

would exceed NASA's career limit for its astronauts.



I am assuming this is the source press release:



http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-183



And here is a link on science.com:http://www.sciencemag.org/content/34...t?sid=bcb83d5c...



Which has as the abstract:



* * The Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft, containing the Curiosity

* * rover, was launched to Mars on 26 November 2011, and for most of

* * the 253-day, 560-million-kilometer cruise to Mars, the Radiation

* * Assessment Detector made detailed measurements of the energetic

* * particle radiation environment inside the spacecraft. These data

* * provide insights into the radiation hazards that would be

* * associated with a human mission to Mars. We report measurements of

* * the radiation dose, dose equivalent, and linear energy transfer

* * spectra. The dose equivalent for even the shortest round-trip with

* * current propulsion systems and comparable shielding is found to be

* * 0.66 ± 0.12 sievert.



Am I correct in assuming one can either stay light and seek to go

fast, or stay slow and seek to have lots of shielding (or I suppose,

preferably go fast and heavy)?



rick jones

--

oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag

these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...

feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...



nuke engine is obvious solution, this is why bolden stated publically

that chemical rockets cant work...

Well you'll need some shielding with that power source! Now combine
that with McCall's shielding and you've got a real ship.

both is best, none of that sour sauce but rather some sweet and sour
sauce on the chicken........................................... .Trig

Le 31/05/13 06:07, Greg (Strider) Moore a écrit :
Do we have a better baseline now, yes

That means that spaceship design must be changed since new propulsion
(faster) engines are nowhere to be seen.

The press release cited the gamma rays of extra-solar origin as the most
dangerous since it is almost impossible to shield against them.

That means that sending humans to Mars is completely impossible now
unless you consider long-term suicide missions, i.e. you can be certain
that the crew will develop cancer a few years after return.

Note that they measured only radiation in space. Radiation in Mars will
be another maybe even bigger issue since most of the surface emits
radiation in Mars due to the bombardment with radiation during millions
of years. Note too that the measurements were done INSIDE a spacecraft,
not outside, i.e. there was some shielding.

Curiosity is measuring the radiation at the surface of Mars now.

These findings support my thesis that the moon is the only "planet"
where we can safely go with existing technology. There we can use
existing caves or build new ones with explosives that will shield the
people from the gamma rays and all radiation. The trip is just a few
days and radiation hazards are very small unless you insist on traveling
during a solar flare eruption.

On May 31, 6:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Le 31/05/13 06:07, Greg (Strider) Moore a crit :
Do we have a better baseline now, yes

That means that spaceship design must be changed since new propulsion
(faster) engines are nowhere to be seen.

We don't need 'faster engines'.



The press release cited the gamma rays of extra-solar origin as the most
dangerous since it is almost impossible to shield against them.

Oh, "almost impossible" my ass. *A lousy three feet of water will stop
something like 97% of all impinging gamma, almost regardless of
energy. *And you need to carry water with you anyway.



That means that sending humans to Mars is completely impossible now
unless you consider long-term suicide missions, i.e. you can be certain
that the crew will develop cancer a few years after return.

Utter poppycock.



Note that they measured only radiation in space. Radiation in Mars will
be another maybe even bigger issue since most of the surface emits
radiation in Mars due to the bombardment with radiation during millions
of years.

Horse manure!



Note too that the measurements were done INSIDE a spacecraft,
not outside, i.e. there was some shielding.

Very little and what do you mean by 'inside'?



Curiosity is measuring the radiation at the surface of Mars now.

These findings support my thesis that the moon is the only "planet"
where we can safely go with existing technology. There we can use
existing caves or build new ones with explosives that will shield the
people from the gamma rays and all radiation. The trip is just a few
days and radiation hazards are very small unless you insist on traveling
during a solar flare eruption.

Your thesis is utter crap and totally untrue.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

I wonder why Fred is so gun ho about humans to mars? he dismisses a
nuke booster as unnecessary despite the fact it would cut travel time
a lot, while minimizing deep space radiation exposure, and cutting
consumables a lot, to say nothing of mimzing the travel part to have
more ground time on mars..

perhaps the company he works for would like to get some pork money
from a manned mars mission?

that would explain his position, although I doubt his corrosive
postings are helping .........

In article , says...

The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

jacob

Note the word *could* in the statement. Also note that the current
limits are intended to only increase the cancer risk of an astronaut by
a mere 3%. It may very well be that NASA can find volunteers willing to
accept a higher risk than that in order to fly a mission to Mars. Heck,
I'd bet you'd find volunteers even if the increased risk of cancer was
30% or higher.

Note the risk that Apollo astronauts took. A solar flare event was a
real risk, and the Apollo CSM/LEM combination offered little in the way
of a "radiation shield". Not to mention the risk inherent in the
missions themselves (e.g. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13).

And finally, NASA has a long history of writing rules which are
subsequently re-written. Note also that NASA gets to write wavers to its
own rules (the shuttle program was quite famous for this), even if they
don't re-write the rules.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer