Astronauts going to Mars would be irradiated too much

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 3:03:33 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:29:58 -0500, David Staup

wrote:



a very weak defense



It's not a defense at all. The implication of the original comment is

absurd, and requires no counter. My comment was just a little jab at

an uneducated, weak mind.

Fortunately, those who might eventually visit Mars will not have to take your advice about not going to Mars. You lack foresight and imagination, as does Davoid.

On Jun 8, 1:32*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 04:27:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And yet there are those who claim that we are changing the Earth's
climate.

I know, it's shocking! And let's not forget those who claim the Sun is
at the center of the Solar System, and that the Earth is round.

The last two are right, while the first, wrt climate, are overstating
their case, at best.

Any terraforming of Mars could be an improvement for Mars colonists,
even if just to eliminate the need for fully-pressurized suits, raise
the temperature and to improve the performance of parachutes for
landing on the planet. Mars is smaller than Earth and its atmosphere
much thinner and therefore easier to modify.

Advances in medicine could mitigate the consequences of radiation
exposure. A lunar base could help answer the question of how much
gravity is enough to prevent or reduce bone loss.

On 14/06/2013 12:14, wrote:
On Jun 8, 1:32 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 04:27:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And yet there are those who claim that we are changing the Earth's
climate.

I know, it's shocking! And let's not forget those who claim the Sun is
at the center of the Solar System, and that the Earth is round.

The last two are right, while the first, wrt climate, are overstating
their case, at best.

Or so dogmatic rightards would like to think.

Any terraforming of Mars could be an improvement for Mars colonists,
even if just to eliminate the need for fully-pressurized suits, raise
the temperature and to improve the performance of parachutes for
landing on the planet. Mars is smaller than Earth and its atmosphere
much thinner and therefore easier to modify.

Terraforming of Mars would likely take of the order of a century to do
even assuming you could find the right raw materials and build a robotic
factory to do it. Most obvious choices would be R-13 and then SF6 to
provide maximum GHG forcing with molecules that are gaseous over most of
the planet, extremely stable and very good at trapping heat.

This will present some serious practical energetic challenges since
there is unlikely to be any easy fossil fuels around on Mars to use as
raw starting materials or a source of energy.

Advances in medicine could mitigate the consequences of radiation
exposure. A lunar base could help answer the question of how much
gravity is enough to prevent or reduce bone loss.

However, at the moment humans going to Mars and returning safely is a
pipe dream that will end in disaster. At best it will be "Big Brother"
with teeth. It is a bit like the "clever" idea of mining asteroids -
great idea but how do you deliver the goods back to Earth?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 6/14/2013 8:06 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/06/2013 12:14, wrote:
On Jun 8, 1:32 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 04:27:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And yet there are those who claim that we are changing the Earth's
climate.

I know, it's shocking! And let's not forget those who claim the Sun is
at the center of the Solar System, and that the Earth is round.

The last two are right, while the first, wrt climate, are overstating
their case, at best.

Or so dogmatic rightards would like to think.

Any terraforming of Mars could be an improvement for Mars colonists,
even if just to eliminate the need for fully-pressurized suits, raise
the temperature and to improve the performance of parachutes for
landing on the planet. Mars is smaller than Earth and its atmosphere
much thinner and therefore easier to modify.

Terraforming of Mars would likely take of the order of a century to do
even assuming you could find the right raw materials and build a robotic
factory to do it. Most obvious choices would be R-13 and then SF6 to
provide maximum GHG forcing with molecules that are gaseous over most of
the planet, extremely stable and very good at trapping heat.

This will present some serious practical energetic challenges since
there is unlikely to be any easy fossil fuels around on Mars to use as
raw starting materials or a source of energy.

Advances in medicine could mitigate the consequences of radiation
exposure. A lunar base could help answer the question of how much
gravity is enough to prevent or reduce bone loss.

However, at the moment humans going to Mars and returning safely is a
pipe dream that will end in disaster. At best it will be "Big Brother"
with teeth. It is a bit like the "clever" idea of mining asteroids -
great idea but how do you deliver the goods back to Earth?

chuckle....AT THE MOMENT........

at the moment no one is on the way
at this moment research is ongoing to overcome the difficulties
If you "think" the difficulties are insurmountable, then your facility
for thinking becomes suspect.

as for delivering the goods back to earth.....god but that's a STUPID
question.....

idiot

On 6/1/2013 11:34 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

while I agree a robot would do a better job.....than you

until AI is achieved your statement is absurd

chrissy-poo

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:54:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Someone named Peterson once suggested that the anti-nuclear protests
at the launches of RTG-equipped spacecraft help improve the safety of
such devices in the event of a launch accident.

Actually, somebody named Snell once lacked the intelligence to
understand the argument. And shows no sign of having improved either
that or his education.

Really, it's a bit cruel poking fun at the witless, but we all have
our little weaknesses...

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 04:14:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I know, it's shocking! And let's not forget those who claim the Sun is
at the center of the Solar System, and that the Earth is round.

The last two are right, while the first, wrt climate, are overstating
their case, at best.

That claim essentially provides proof that the claimant is ignorant at
the deepest levels... or that their dogmatism blinds them to accepting
completely solid scientific truths.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:09:38 -0500, David Staup
wrote:

until AI is achieved your statement is absurd

Robots do not operate autonomously. Their AI is very good for what it
is designed to do... but the mission planning remains firmly in human
hands, and can be done as effectively from Earth as from Mars. More
so, actually.

On Jun 14, 2:06*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

Terraforming of Mars would likely take of the order of a century to do
even assuming you could find the right raw materials and build a robotic
factory to do it. Most obvious choices would be R-13 and then SF6 to
provide maximum GHG forcing with molecules that are gaseous over most of
the planet, extremely stable and very good at trapping heat.


You people live in the imagination and would normally be harmless
apart from the fact that you are dead serious in your convictions and
unfortunately have influence in the political sphere with his geo-
engineering ideas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...g-john-holdren

That was just before 'climategate' broke and thankfully the hyperfuss
has since died down but it does not excuse the astronomical community
or rather,the empirical community which created the mess in the first
place by distracting from genuine pollution concerns and creating a
conclusion that was both stupid and dangerous.Remember what Galileo
said -

"I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 25 degree inclination of Mars is very close to the largely
equatorial climate of the Earth with only a slight increase in polar
inputs which sees greater swings between daylight/darkness over a
greater range of latitudes compared to the 23 1/3 degree inclination
of the Earth.Unfortunately I cannot get people to participate in
promoting the global climate spectrum which ranges from equatorial at
0 degree inclination to polar which has a 90 degree inclination.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...thmarstilt.jpg

This is how global climate is defined and not statistical weather
rigged to suit speculative modelers and the notion they can model the
future conditions of the Earth.If they could interpret correctly what
the conditions actually are presently then they would do the world a
favor but people find more excitement in the 'end of the world' agenda
than they do in normal researches even though the normal approach is
as intensely satisfying as could be.

On 6/14/2013 9:22 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:54:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Someone named Peterson once suggested that the anti-nuclear protests
at the launches of RTG-equipped spacecraft help improve the safety of
such devices in the event of a launch accident.

Actually, somebody named Snell once lacked the intelligence to
understand the argument. And shows no sign of having improved either
that or his education.

Really, it's a bit cruel poking fun at the witless, but we all have
our little weaknesses...

pot kettle black chrissy-poo

it is fun watching the clueless struggle

ignorantia affectata


greenies


idiots