It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Astronauts Will Get Dumber on Their Way to Mars

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




We were becoming an industrial power then though, and more people were paying taxes as there was a lot of people working on decent jobs created by the boom. We wasted the extra money going to the moon.


Hi Ricky,

I think thats an oversimplification. You were already an Industrial power thanks to the Korean war. Its a complex subject but I agree that the middle class in western economies has had the life squeezed out of it.

I do no imply that its the lesser of 2 evils. The wars of the last 300 years have had all sides of the fight finances by the same Banking family. Wars/weapons are no longer about any moral high ground or clash of civilizations. Wars are just wars for profit. Heck the moon landings wouldnt have even happened if it wasnt for ideological one-upmanship.

Are you sure the USA was debt free in the 60's? What prompted Kennedy to enact the Silver backed US$ that ultimately got him assassinated. I dont think it was a balanced budget.

All I'm saying its that the whole world is bankrupt. Whats another $trillion dollars to get humanity to Mars. It would certainly be a leap in technological advancement - overcoming radiation issues among others.


edit on 8-5-2015 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: editt

edit on 8-5-2015 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: eeditt




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I had seen some interesting developments using a sort of packed sewage as a shielding material, it seemed to be promising but then nothing has been said.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

We were not debt free in the sixties but we didn't have much national dept in the early sixties.

Not compared to today anyway.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
The Apollo mission astronauts averaged 1.2mSv/day .
If the Mars mission had similar exposure, a 180 day trip to Mars would be about 310 mSv, about the same as a 500 day stay on Mars surface. Then a ? trip back to earth of 180 days for another 310 mSv. That would add up to about 1000mSv (1 Sievert) in the course of 2+ years. Probably not enough to cause significant radiation sickness, but the mental effects could be more than previously recognized.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Tusks

You don't have to suffer radiation sickness to suffer the effects of radiation.
The effects of long term "low" level radiation are not the same as short term high levels.

edit on 5/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
in any case the solution is to stop sending people to space with inadequate shielding. build a real space cruiser with real 6 inch thick metal walls lined with something like lead, tungsten, berylium, lithium, cesium and high hydrogen content polymers plus water tanks. another novel thing to try is go really really really fast. preferably do both. And put a helicon coil system and ionizable gas, gas tanks to create a magneto plasma shield like earth has.

one does not have to be irradiated if one goes into space.
edit on 9-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


build a real space cruiser with real 6 inch thick metal walls lined with something like lead, tungsten, berylium, lithium, cesium and high hydrogen content polymers plus water tanks.

You don't see the paradox in that statement? In any case, you don't understand the problem.

edit on 5/10/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701


build a real space cruiser with real 6 inch thick metal walls lined with something like lead, tungsten, berylium, lithium, cesium and high hydrogen content polymers plus water tanks.

You don't see the paradox in that statement? In any case, you don't understand the problem.
there is no paradox. if something is worth doing it is worth doing in excellence. we have the technical means to build robustly in space. we have heavy lift to take the prefabricated pieces into position to be put together. any one of those materials can be used as radiation shielding and steel or titanium or aluminium can be used for a robust protective hull particularly if Wiffel shielding is added or angled ingots are used in composite layers with softer materials. the M2P2 plasma sheath system can be far more powerful than earths own magnetosphere in terms of shielding from solar and come cosmic rays.

engines about to be available can propel even a massive ship like i proposed at rapid velocities. we will soon have fusion propulsion and after that nanogram quantities of antimatter (also on the horizon) will greatly multiply the thrust of even first generation fusion or fission rockets.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

m2p2 mag sail derived plasma shield verses solar and some cosmic radiation:

en.wikipedia.org...

additionally the m2p2 will augment the velocity on outward bound trajectories.


edit on 10-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
So you agree with me that the solution will be found in plastic/ceramic materials.
Ok.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701
So you agree with me that the solution will be found in plastic/ceramic materials.
Ok.
the problem is plastic and ceramic materials are good for some types or radiation and not so good for others. likewise metal shielding is good for some but not so good for others. but it does have the virtue of also providing impact hazard mitigation. there is room for both. in fact for at least three of them. metal hull with plastic ceramic liner and water tankage strategically placed. inner bulkheads and decking would also be plastic or ceramic with metal framing.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
So. Word salad.
Ok.


The fact is, right now, there is no solution for long term exposure to cosmic radiation.
That's what I said in my initial post.

edit on 5/10/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
metal has far larger problems with induced radiation or also Bremsstrahlung radiation and spallation. but even so it is appropriate for part of the protective design/hull.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701
So. Word salad.
Ok.


The fact is, right now, there is no solution for long term exposure to cosmic radiation.


i don't think that follows even without fusion or fission or AM hybrids. existing systems such as elf tube ion thrusters can provide over all rapid velocity (4 or 5 times that of helios II.) the issue is the initial acceleration is weak. it should be augmented with something like SMEs otherwise your astronauts are overly exposed during acceleration and deaccleration.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Astronauts are exposed through the duration of the transit. Acceleration (positive and negative) is irrelevant.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701
So. Word salad.
Ok.


The fact is, right now, there is no solution for long term exposure to cosmic radiation.
That's what I said in my initial post.
yeah there is. the daily exposure rate is low unless there is a cosmic weather event. so the solution if you are not satisfied with shielding materials is is to go extra fast to reduce the number of days one is exposed in transit. On or around Mars there are other options available depending on the nature of the mission.
edit on 10-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


the daily exposure rate is low unless there is a cosmic weather event.

No. The daily exposure is much higher than that found on Earth's surface. The daily exposure is not low.


o the solution if you are not satisfied with shielding materials is is to go extra fast to reduce the number of days one is exposed in transit.
How fast is "extra fast?" What is the transit time? What is the source of thrust?


On or around Mars there are other options available depending on the nature of the mission.
For example?



edit on 5/10/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
irelelvant. we both know that the exposure is higher and we ALSO know that this has been characterized and measured. in fact we both know that one round trip is just under NASA limitations on a Astronauts career exposure allowed. therefore we both know that "there is more exposure in space" is not germaine to the discussion of the mars mission even without faster ships or better shielding.
edit on 10-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Yes. As I stated in my first post in this thread.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   
for example placing habitats in deep craters or cave systems or burrowed thermally into polar caps or glacial material. or sending "mars mover" machines to bury permanent habitats. also cosmic weather events are directional even if overall cosmic radiation comes from essentially every direction. it doesn't really but it works as an approximation. since cosmic events are directional it is probably possible to put a large object between an orbiting facility and the direction of a sever cosmic flux event. dunno if deimos or phobos would work but there is always the planet itself using an efficient thruster such as 4rth generation hall thrusters or elf tube thrusters.
edit on 10-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


since cosmic events are directional it is probably possible to put a large object between an orbiting facility and the direction of a sever cosmic flux event.

No.
Cosmic radiation is isotropic and the subject is the interplanetary transit, not planetary habitation. Once you get to Mars things are different from getting there. Mars does have an atmosphere (of sorts) and other measures can be taken which cannot be taken in transit.

edit on 5/10/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join