Astronauts Will Get Dumber on Their Way to Mars

originally posted by: Phage
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.

the "isotropic" radiation is a known factor. cosmic events such as GRBs or novae result in a directional stream of additional radiation. it is the cosmic equivalent to a CME or solar magnetic reconnect event.

and how does any of this have any bearing on the fact that if you go faster and thus spend less days in transit you get less exposure? I think you just like to argue.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

cosmic events such as GRBs or novae result in a directional stream of additional or radiation. it is the cosmic equivelent to a CME or solar magnetic reconnect event.

Do you know what "GRB" means? Do you know the difference between electromagnetic radiation and energetic particle radiation? Do you know the difference in shielding required for either?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

and how does any of this have any bearing on the fact that if you go faster and thus spend less days in transit you get less exposure? I think you just like to argue.

I find that arguing (I prefer the term discussion) often aids reasoning.
I also find that you have not provided an alternative propulsion method to decrease transit time.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

cosmic events such as GRBs or novae result in a directional stream of additional or radiation. it is the cosmic equivelent to a CME or solar magnetic reconnect event.

Do you know what "GRB" means? Do you know the difference between electromagnetic radiation and energetic particle radiation? Do you know the difference in shielding required for either?

i do. and i know when some schmuck is trying to talk down to me. now do you wanna have a conversation or not?

did you not read when i brought up two fooking terms that clearly indicate i know about the difference between em radiation and ion radiation. Spallation and bermstrallung. if you didn't notice; that should have answered your question.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
I do.
Please continue but try to avoid the deprecatory adjectives, schmuck.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701
I do.
Please continue but try to avoid the deprecatory adjectives, schmuck.

did you not read when i brought up two terms that clearly indicate i know about the difference between em radiation and ion radiation. Spallation and bermstrallung. if you didn't notice; that should have answered your question.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

It didn't notice. Sorry, my failing.
Can you tell my why it is more (or less) difficult to shield against electromagnetic radiation than it is to shield against highly energetic particles?

To reiterate my initial post, until technology is developed to sufficiently shield astronauts from cosmic (particle) radiation, there will be no manned missions to Mars.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

It didn't notice. Sorry, my failing.
Can you tell my why it is more (or less) difficult to shield against electromagnetic radiation than it is to shield against highly energetic particles?

do you want an essay or what. that is a lot to cover.

beginning with nuclei there is rest mass and inertial mass and kinetic energy involved. the ions being electrically charged can be effected by electrical or magnetic fields but at high velocity this gets to be impossible. when a high velocity nucleus otherwise know as a relativistic ion travels through a material it will travel some distance into the material before it impacts with something that absorbs some of that energy. this could stop it if it was a slow moving particle but probably wont until it travels and collides some more. and if either the impactor or the impactee splits they both go off until they too collide. this is spalling. if the resulting fragments are unstable on a nuclear level this results in induced radiation. the problem with dense shielding such as metals is that all of these induced atoms can be dangerous in their own right depending on half life. plus they degrade the shield or the structure of the ship as well. embrittlement is a big problem in nuclear reactors. but the reason other materials have to be included is not all particles are charged. Neutrons require different materials and this is why certain materials are used as moderators in reactors and certain materials are used as reflectors. additionally pions or other ghost particles of finite life are also released. when these decay they release high energy gamma rays which can appear mysteriously on the other side of any shielding because it traveled as a non interacting particle. now em waves or photons have no rest mass and they generally only effect electronic bonds. of course they can hit and effect nuclei ( but they are called ionizing radiation after all) but certain materials can effectively stop x rays and even gamma rays and x rays can be redirected by em fields. recently metamaterials have been made that can act as lenses for x rays and even gamma rays.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

now em waves or photons have no rest mass and they generally only effect electronic bonds. of course they can hit and effect nuclei (they are called ionizing radiation after all) but certain materials can effectively stop x rays and even gamma rays and x rays can be redirected by em fields.

What does ionization have to do with atomic nuclei? I thought it had to do with ejecting electrons from an atom. Doesn't affecting the nucleus mean changing the element itself (or isotope)?

X-rays can be affected by electromagnetic fields? Are you sure?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

now em waves or photons have no rest mass and they generally only effect electronic bonds. of course they can hit and effect nuclei (they are called ionizing radiation after all) but certain materials can effectively stop x rays and even gamma rays and x rays can be redirected by em fields.

What does ionization have to do with atomic nuclei?
X-rays can be affected by electromagnetic fields? Are you sure?

i typed rather a lot and that got confused in translation as it were . i went back and added a word to try and clear that up. photons do strip electrons or ionize and if that electron is a bonding electron that breaks structure apart. but at the same time i know there are experiments where photons interact with nucleons such as protons. plus when an electron that has been excited by a photon relaxes it's energy state it emits further photons wherever it happens to be.

any em can be affected by another em field. it's just the higher the energy the more difficult that is to actually do. however there are materials that act as a lens for x rays and with the advent of metamaterials it should be possible to actually completely route x rays or even gamma rays completely away from a protected object.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

i typed rather a lot and that got confused in translation as it were .

Right.
I understand typing more than one understands. That happens frequently here. It should be avoided.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

i typed rather a lot and that got confused in translation as it were .

Right.
I understand typing more than one understands. That happens frequently here. It should be avoided.

you still on that schtick? you may be able to browbeat the naives that way but all that does for me is piss me off.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

you still on that schtick?

If you mean being a stickler for facts? Guilty.

all that does for me is piss me off.

Oh my.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701
If you mean being a stickler for facts? Guilty.

what you are guilty of is believing your own hype.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
Hype. A contraction of hyperbole. What hyperbole have I presented?

All I have actually said here is that radiation presents formidable challenges to interplanetary travel. Do you dispute that?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Hype. A contraction of hyperbole.
What hyperbole have I presented?

This:

I understand typing more than one understands. That happens frequently here. It should be avoided.

along with not understanding that my use of terms of the art involved with ions means i know about the topic. instead you say:

Do you know what "GRB" means? Do you know the difference between electromagnetic radiation and energetic particle radiation? Do you know the difference in shielding required for either

so you are poking at windmills of your own imagining (your hype) instead of addressing the topic.

BTW you do know that a GRB also releases a massive amount of relativistic ions? especially a GRB source such as a hypernova. Yes there are more than one origin for GRBs.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

so you are poking at windmills of your own imagining (your hype) instead of addressing the topic.

Nope.
I've been addressing the topic from the get go and my stance remains the same as it was in my initial post.

Your statement about ionization radiation affecting atomic nuclei was concerning though, in relation to your understanding of the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701

so you are poking at windmills of your own imagining (your hype) instead of addressing the topic.

Nope.
I've been addressing the topic from the get go and my stance remains the same as it was in my initial post.

Your statement about ionization radiation affecting atomic nuclei was concerning though, in relation to your understanding of the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

you ask me a question that would require pages to even outline all the pertinent information on. i do so in minutes and because the composition structure has errors in it you take that as an indicator i don't know what i'm talking about?

but then you have done so repeatedly. i guess hyperbole or hype isn't accurate. strawman is moreso. your working assumption is i don't know this or i don't know that and therefore you have superior knowledge on the topic. you may well have. i don't know your credentials. but you cannot prove it by imagining deficiencies on my part and addressing imaginary ignorance.

furthermore; i am pretty sure we can brute force solve the cosmic radiation problem. If you put enough material in between yourself and any radiation source you can eventually get enough to stop enough of it to keep yourself healthy. So on that basis I say yes we have the ability to do it now. that does not mean we have an economical or efficient way of doing it.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

But isn't brute forcing the problem a form of spiral without end?
You add material, you need more fuel. More fuel adds more mass, which require more fuel / better engines and so forth.