|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22718672
There is only one choice; DUMP the S---- chemical rockets, tell the environmentalists to GO TO HELL and build Project Orion. It is the only spaceship/travel method that would be fast enough and shielded enough (because of the massive carrying capacity of the drive system) to allow any kind of longer-term space flights, and colonization. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:48:11 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22718672 There is only one choice; DUMP the S---- chemical rockets, tell the environmentalists to GO TO HELL and build Project Orion. It is the only spaceship/travel method that would be fast enough and shielded enough (because of the massive carrying capacity of the drive system) to allow any kind of longer-term space flights, and colonization. Or don't go to Mars. There's no point in sending people there, anyway. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
On 5/30/13 6:48 PM, RichA wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22718672 There is only one choice; DUMP the S---- chemical rockets, tell the environmentalists to GO TO HELL and build Project Orion. It is the only spaceship/travel method that would be fast enough and shielded enough (because of the massive carrying capacity of the drive system) to allow any kind of longer-term space flights, and colonization. Because Mars no longer has a magnetic field, and the martian atmosphere is continually scoured away by the solar wind, terraformation of Mars cannot succeed. The atmospheric pressure is 1/100th that of the Earth. Mars continues to be bathed in ionizing radiation for lack of a substantial atmosphere and lack of a magnetic field. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
Chris L Peterson:
Or don't go to Mars. There's no point in sending people there, anyway. Bingo. I like SF as much as the next guy, but I try to keep it compartmented in my brain and not mixed up with the real-world division of my my intellect. Why anyone (anyone who has nothing to gain financially, that is) would think that we ought to send people to Mars is a complete mystery to my non-SF brain parts. Colonies? "Terraforming?" Not gonna happen. If Mars /could/ have an Earth-like environment it /would/ have, but it doesn't. People need to get past this fantasy. We're not going to leave Earth for a very, very long time, if ever, so we need more manned missions to explore Planet Earth and find ways to ensure that it can hold life as we know it for the long term. Furthermore, I think that we're going to soon run out of reasons to send unmanned spacecraft to Mars. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
On May 31, 10:07*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:48:11 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22718672 There is only one choice; *DUMP the S---- chemical rockets, tell the environmentalists to GO TO HELL and build Project Orion. *It is the only spaceship/travel method that would be fast enough and shielded enough (because of the massive carrying capacity of the drive system) to allow any kind of longer-term space flights, and colonization. Or don't go to Mars. There's no point in sending people there, anyway. I don't care if they go to Mars, I want them to go to the moon's of the gas giants which may, just may, harbour life of some kind. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
In Chris L Peterson
wrote: On Fri, 31 May 2013 17:44:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: ... A robot is vastly cheaper, and does a far better job. Depends on the job, doesn't it? And, people are pretty inexpensive. -- St. Paul, MN |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
On Fri, 31 May 2013 17:44:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: I don't care if they go to Mars, I want them to go to the moon's of the gas giants which may, just may, harbour life of some kind. But there's no reason to send a person. A robot is vastly cheaper, and does a far better job. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
On 5/30/2013 6:48 PM, RichA wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22718672 There is only one choice; DUMP the S---- chemical rockets, tell the environmentalists to GO TO HELL and build Project Orion. It is the only spaceship/travel method that would be fast enough and shielded enough (because of the massive carrying capacity of the drive system) to allow any kind of longer-term space flights, and colonization. There is one other option...find a prophylactic (to radiation damage) that reduces the effects (cell death) such that a manageable amount of shielding would be sufficient. The process of cell death involved in radiation damage is the same as in atrophy: apoptosis find a way to inhibit apoptosis and you lessen the problems from both radiation damage AND long duration microgravity. So there are, in fact, more than one option. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
On 5/30/13 6:48 PM, RichA wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22718672 There is only one choice; DUMP the S---- chemical rockets, tell the environmentalists to GO TO HELL and build Project Orion. It is the only spaceship/travel method that would be fast enough and shielded enough (because of the massive carrying capacity of the drive system) to allow any kind of longer-term space flights, and colonization. Is your face red from all this Mars dust, or is it the gamma-rays? http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...safety-limits/ Although a private effort hopes to send some people on a one-way trip to Mars, chances are good that the first people to reach the red planet will be government-supported astronauts who will be taking a round trip. But one of NASA's own instruments has just suggested that there might be an advantage to a one-way journey: a far lower dose of radiation. The work takes advantage of a bit of hardware that NASA sent to Mars for a completely unrelated project: the radiation detector on the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity. The Radiation Assessment Detector is actually two sensors; one tracks radiation via the energy it deposits in silicon, and the other watches for flashes of light that occur as radiation travels through a hunk of plastic. Agreement between the two sensors is used to determine the amount of radiation the detector is receiving. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much
Bert:
...And, people are pretty inexpensive. Tell that to someone who has lost a loved one, whether through a Shuttle accident or other cause. Is that what you would say when a member of your family dies? -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dutch reality show seeks one-way astronauts for Mars | [email protected] | Policy | 4 | April 25th 13 12:10 AM |
SuperWASP Finds a Strongly-Irradiated Transiting Gas-Giant Exoplanet(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 12th 07 07:22 AM |
SuperWASP Finds a Strongly-Irradiated Transiting Gas-Giant Exoplanet (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | November 12th 07 06:21 AM |
SwRI Instrument Selected For Next Mars Rover Mission To Assess Radiation Hazard For Future Astronauts | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 11th 05 07:05 PM |
SwRI Instrument Selected For Next Mars Rover Mission To Assess Radiation Hazard For Future Astronauts | [email protected] | News | 0 | January 11th 05 07:05 PM |