NASA uses Mars as an excuses to keep ISS

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:49:11 -0500, kT wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
Here the argument is that NASA needs to spend money and time on their
toy space station.

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aia/storyDetails.jsp?
issueid=4200843E-0CB2-4EC3-
BA58-908C50BC821E&copyid=B513BE71-23AF-49F4-
A35B-731A8675A076

This is the best excuse that NASA can come up with to keep the ISS
going.

Here's the problem with this thinking:

1) You're going to do radiation tests on scads of people to see if the
radiation is safe for a dozen people?! What's the logic in that? 2)
The radiation data gathered would be trivial. The Russians should
already have radiation data from low earth orbit from their long
duration space flights, and we should have similar from our longest
sky lab missions.
3) The ISS is different than what Dr. Zubrin envisioned for a Mars
flight, which would be a tethered rotating system to provide
artificial gravity. So a trip to Mars would have some gravity and no
protection from radiation by the van allen belts. Other than being
completely different, I guess that's the same.
Nobody goes to Mars in any projected scenario and survives the round
trip for radiation, system failures, social friction... and
consummables,
It would have to be a really smart and clever astronaut!

I guess some people, like Uncle Al, don't believe in engineering.

You don't believe in science, so you have given me no reason to believe
you understand engineering.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Dr. Zubrin covers the issue of radiation in his book, "The Case for
Mars". Basically, you have a small shielded safe room for solar storms.
The radiation levels are otherwise a small risk over the next 30 years.
Considering all the other things that can kill you on a mission to
Mars, worrying about radiation is not rational.

Go to ISS FUBAR, close your eyes. See those rings? Cerenkov rings.
NASA and the USSR admit 95% of all long duration (three months or more)
asstronaughts get radiation cataracts. Go into interstellar space,
outside both the atmosphere and the magnetosphere, and get cooked.

Are ya gonna live in the "small shielded safe room" ass to tea kettle
with the stink of yourself and your crewmates? How much shielding ism
neeed to stop GeV protons, pair formation gammas, and nuclear spallation
products including neutrons, N-14(n,p)C-14? LOTS. The Earth's
atmosphere is equivalent to a yard of lead mass/cm^2, 760 mm of mercury.
Turn on a Geiger counter. Do you hear crickets behind a yard of lead
shielding and inside a 40,000 mile radius magnetosphere?

You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water tank
worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how it works
out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.

So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
radiation belts will be cooked.

And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
design space systems. I don't think so.

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Dr. Zubrin covers the issue of radiation in his book, "The Case for
Mars". Basically, you have a small shielded safe room for solar storms.
The radiation levels are otherwise a small risk over the next 30 years.
Considering all the other things that can kill you on a mission to
Mars, worrying about radiation is not rational.

Go to ISS FUBAR, close your eyes. See those rings? Cerenkov rings.
NASA and the USSR admit 95% of all long duration (three months or more)
asstronaughts get radiation cataracts. Go into interstellar space,
outside both the atmosphere and the magnetosphere, and get cooked.

Are ya gonna live in the "small shielded safe room" ass to tea kettle
with the stink of yourself and your crewmates? How much shielding ism
neeed to stop GeV protons, pair formation gammas, and nuclear spallation
products including neutrons, N-14(n,p)C-14? LOTS. The Earth's
atmosphere is equivalent to a yard of lead mass/cm^2, 760 mm of mercury.
Turn on a Geiger counter. Do you hear crickets behind a yard of lead
shielding and inside a 40,000 mile radius magnetosphere?

You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water tank
worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how it works
out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.

So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
radiation belts will be cooked.

And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
design space systems. I don't think so.


What part of three months or more did you not understand?

Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water
tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how
it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.

So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
radiation belts will be cooked.

And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
design space systems. I don't think so.


What part of three months or more did you not understand?

Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.

If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months.
We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.

Note NASA, or the Russians (who have a lot of experience with long
duration space flight) or the Europeans space agencies don't say that
you'll be killed by radiation from here to Mars, only ignorant posers on
usenet groups who are trying to boost their egos with made up stories say
it can't be done.

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water
tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how
it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.

So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
radiation belts will be cooked.

And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
design space systems. I don't think so.


What part of three months or more did you not understand?

Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.

If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months.
We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.

A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
spent in space.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:
:
: In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
:
: You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water
: tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how
: it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.
:
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
: radiation belts will be cooked.
:
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
: design space systems. I don't think so.
:
:
: What part of three months or more did you not understand?
:
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.
:
: If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months.
: We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.
:
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are)
ISS - 20-40 rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way)
Total Mars Mission - 100 rem over 3 years (2 year stay)
Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical


The reality is no one knows for sure.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the foreseeable
future.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 5, 2:30*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:



wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:
:
: In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
:
: You go and get cooked. *Tell us how the toilet and its black water
: tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. *Ask RV parks how
: it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.
:
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
: radiation belts will be cooked.
:
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
: design space systems. I don't think so.
:
:
: What part of three months or more did you not understand?
:
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.
:
: If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months.
: We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.
:
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are)
ISS - 20-40 rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way)
Total Mars Mission - 100 rem over 3 years (2 year stay)
Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical

The reality is no one knows for sure.

Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the foreseeable
future.

Even if anyone could afford to do so, wouldn't the high failure rate
of previous unmanned missions to Mars make any such attempt just too
risky (ignoring for a second the very real dangers of radiation and
such)?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:00:01 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water
tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how
it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.

So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
radiation belts will be cooked.

And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which
we design space systems. I don't think so.


What part of three months or more did you not understand?

Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.

If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6
months. We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.

A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total

Yep. About 6 months out, and 6 months back.

and time spent
on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time spent in
space.

Nope. Mars has an atmosphere that provides a lot of shielding.

Zubrin covered this in his book already. Are there any INFORMED
objections to a Mars mission?

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:30:01 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: : On
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote: :
: In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: :
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: :
: You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black
water : tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV
parks how : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state
parks. :
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side
the : radiation belts will be cooked.
:
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by
which we : design space systems. I don't think so. :
:
: What part of three months or more did you not understand? :
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks. :
: If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6
months. : We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.
:
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are) ISS - 20-40
rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way) Total Mars Mission - 100 rem
over 3 years (2 year stay) Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical


The reality is no one knows for sure.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the
foreseeable future.

So, you're making an appeal to ignorance fallacy and following it up with
circular logic.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy being "we don't know" with the implicit
(false) assumption that we can't find out if we go there.

The circular logic is that we shouldn't go because we're not going.

Okay, anyone with a RATIONAL argument why we shouldn't go to Mars?

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:38:44 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:

On Sep 5, 2:30Â*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:



wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: : On
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote: :
: In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: :
: You go and get cooked. Â*Tell us how the toilet and its black
water : tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Â*Ask
RV parks how : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state
parks. :
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side
the : radiation belts will be cooked.
:
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by
which we : design space systems. I don't think so. :
:
: What part of three months or more did you not understand? :
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks. :
: If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6
months. : We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the
details. :
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are) ISS -
20-40 rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way) Total Mars Mission - 100 rem
over 3 years (2 year stay) Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical

The reality is no one knows for sure.

Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the
foreseeable future.

Even if anyone could afford to do so, wouldn't the high failure rate of
previous unmanned missions to Mars make any such attempt just too risky
(ignoring for a second the very real dangers of radiation and such)?

Well bless him, but McCall pretty much blew the radiation thing out of
the water with facts. So really, let's do ignore radiation and the
irrational fears that come with it.

I guess I don't agree with the implicit assumption in your argument that
failure rates for unmanned missions, which are made entirely on the basis
of cost, are the same as the failure rates of manned missions, which are
based on protecting human life and generally have a much higher failure
rate.