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.

 

More Difficulties If We Head To Mars

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
1 way trip to Mars. Or as we used to call it in the old days. Colonization. We'll figure it out. Some will die, just as thousands died during our colonization of this planet.




posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

My understanding is that current propulsion systems are able to get humans to Mars in approx. 3-4 weeks. The problem is the cost of the vast amount of fuel required, and the cost of getting that off the earth.

That's why they currently use the slingshot method, (around the Earth, Moon, etc.), combined with timing the travel of Earth and Mars to the closest meeting point, which is what takes traveling to Mars so long currently. Not the propulsion system.

Baring advancements in space travel methods, what we really need is Nations to combine their funds and expertise to arrange the travel there. Of course, that isn't likely to happen while the Defense Industry is making so much $$$.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Jenisiz

What about when they were walking on the moon? You also didn't explain how they were able to use film and not have it pre-exposed by solar radiation on a celestial body that has no protective atmosphere.

I'm still here trying to learn


Answered in detail here.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Jenisiz

What about when they were walking on the moon? You also didn't explain how they were able to use film and not have it pre-exposed by solar radiation on a celestial body that has no protective atmosphere.

I'm still here trying to learn


Answered in detail here.
Not really. Our atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic poles protect us - at least that's how I understand it. When they were on the moon, they had none of that protection from harmful x-rays and neither did their cameras and film. Their film would have been exposed before they could ever have used it. The camera had no shielding. Please explain.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22
Old film had something called an "ISO" number which was a measure of the film's sensitivity to light (and other forms of radiation). Very sensitive film could take pictures better in low light conditions, but was more sensitive to "fogging" by airport X-rays, which is why the old airport signs often said you needed to remove "high speed" (meaning sensitive) film from your bags before they were X-rayed. Also the intensity of the X-rays was much lower for carry-on bags than for checked bags.

The insensitive films were generally for taking pictures in bright daylight and weren't subject to fogging by such stray radiation. Obviously it was very bright on the moon so the film used didn't need to be the sensitive low light type that could be fogged by radiation.

Also as I think someone mentioned the sun emits very little X-rays, so what do you think is going to fog the film if not X-rays? Brighter light can't penetrate the camera. some cosmic rays can and we do see some stray artifacts on some images which might be the result of strikes by cosmic rays.

The only protection the astronauts had was their space suit, and they didn't block all radiation, so they got exposed to more radiation on the moon than they would have on Earth, though not a dangerous or lethal dose. There was a risk of a solar flare or coronal mass ejection creating a dangerous exposure. NASA gambled that such an infrequent event wouldn't happen during such short trips to the moon and the gamble paid off, it never did, but on an extended voyage to Mars such an event is much more likely and better shielding would be advisable, compared to the Apollo craft.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Jenisiz

What about when they were walking on the moon? You also didn't explain how they were able to use film and not have it pre-exposed by solar radiation on a celestial body that has no protective atmosphere.

I'm still here trying to learn


Answered in detail here.
Not really. Our atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic poles protect us - at least that's how I understand it. When they were on the moon, they had none of that protection from harmful x-rays and neither did their cameras and film. Their film would have been exposed before they could ever have used it. The camera had no shielding. Please explain.


I did explain:


originally posted by: Saint Exupery
...whatever x-ray exposure the astronauts got on the Moon or going to or from it, the folk on the International Space Stations get it every day, including (and especially) when they go on spacewalks. The same goes for their film (or at least it did back when they used film - I don't know if everything is digital now).

The bottom line is that is not the big bad boogeyman that some people make it out to be. For example, in previous posts people were comparing medical x-rays to solar x-rays. A medical x-ray machine cranks-out EM radiation at around 8 million electron volts ("Hard" x-rays), whereas solar x-rays at less than 5 thousand electron volts ("Soft" x-rays). Soft x-rays can be blocked with relatively thin metal.

(emphasis added)

In short, the x-rays were not - ARE NOT - harmful at those energy levels for the duration of those missions. The astronauts' spacesuits and the cameras' cases were AND ARE adequate shielding against the low flux of soft x-rays routinely encountered beyond Earth's atmosphere. The astronauts do not get harmed. Their film does not get exposed.



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join