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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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