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.

 

Humans will not go to Mars

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The Dangers of cancer from deep space radiation are known, and now there's this:

www.space.com...

The U.S. Crew Exploration Vehicle project looks to be in trouble, overweight and over budget.

More radiation shielding is going to be necessary for trips beyond the Van Allen Belt. Meaning more launches. Meaning more money that American taxpayers will not be willing to spend.

Russian and Chinese programs face the same challenges.

It was a nice dream, but it ain't gonna happen, folks.
-----------------
edit to fix link



[edit on 18-7-2006 by masqua]



apc

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
OH NO! THERE'S... *GASP* OBSTACLES!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!

How about, instead of giving up at the first glimmer of trouble, you come up with some ideas to help succeed. Them problems ain't gonna solve themselves.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
Russian and Chinese programs face the same challenges.

Perhaps then, in the sometime future, these obstacles will be overcome by a joint adventure.

NN


jra

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
The Dangers of cancer from deep space radiation are known, and now there's this:

www.space.com...


My problem with that is that they gave a mouse a single dose of what one would get over the long-term on the trip. Giving a sudden high dosage of radiation is different than getting it slowly over a long period of time I believe.

There have also been advances in radiation shielding. The use of polyethylene is fairly recent I think (within the last few years at any rate). Going to Mars safely is not impossible.


The U.S. Crew Exploration Vehicle project looks to be in trouble, overweight and over budget.


Link please? I wasn't aware that a CEV was built yet, let alone overweight and over budget. I believe you have been missinformed.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
My problem with that is that they gave a mouse a single dose of what one would get over the long-term on the trip. Giving a sudden high dosage of radiation is different than getting it slowly over a long period of time I believe.


You are correct. A yearly dose as per Canadian regulations is 5 Rem. Where I worked, that dosage was reduced to 2 Rem as a target for the sake of safety.

While getting a 5 Rem dose is not going to kill you or make your hair fall out, it is still a concern for health. Getting that same dosage over the course of 1 year is a lot less of a health problem.

I would,'t mind a few millirem here and there but to carry around a 5 rem dose would scare me a bit.

The only time I ever exceeded my rad dose during 31 years in the industry was a 260 millirem dose (internal) from Tritium. For that mistake I was hauled up on the proverbial carpet to explain how I did it. No joy there...

If they shot that mouse with the equivalent gained on the trip to Mars, that would be a serious acute dosage. What they should have done was expose the mouse with a cronic dose administered over the period of time it takes to make the trip.

However, the mouse may die of old age first.

Interesting topic, though, aaaaa.



fixed grammar

[edit on 18-7-2006 by masqua]


GSA

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
How about a plasma coating for the craft? create an energy field around it so it can just deflect the incoming radiation?? Like the Russians are said to be able to do to make a plane stealthy? Could it work?

I do believe we will get to mars though, and in some areas they say we are going sooner rather than later.

lets wait see what NASA can come up with, or create a new X-craft prize to get to mars...


jra

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GSA
How about a plasma coating for the craft? create an energy field around it so it can just deflect the incoming radiation?? Like the Russians are said to be able to do to make a plane stealthy? Could it work?


magnetic/electrostatic shield concepts are being worked on for radiation shielding. Here are a few links I have bookmarked on the subject.

www.islandone.org...
www.hps.org...

Although this next concept is mostly for propulsion, it would also shield from radiation as well I'd think.
www.ess.washington.edu...
science.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Since all deterrant information in this direction is things that we easily overcome/prevent here, it is more likely that this study was done to prevent people from pushing to go to Mars, just like when we went to the moon, all sorts of propaganda was pushed at us to get us to want to go in a space ship that has less technology in it than my bf's new car.

The question is more: what is more profitable to do now?

[edit on 18-7-2006 by jlc163]


GSA

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Ok imagine this if you will.

A global radar scan is done of mars, and they find that in the recent geological past the had immense forests and oceans - then they discover massive natural resources there via radar penetrating the ground...

Now cue the massive and desperate scramble for getting to mars first - It would be like the cold war all over again - the first there could claim as much as they wanted to and gain a massive amount of advantages over every one else back here on earth.

Sounds silly? what happens if the worlds reserves run dry and your sat on a massive amount just a stones throw away and control ALL available supplies. You would be king.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
If you want to talk about going into space for usable resources, then no, Mars is not the preferable place... Just a hop, skip, and a jump away we have the Asteroid Belt on the other hand.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

A bubble of plasma could shield astronauts from radiation during long journeys through space, researchers are suggesting. If the idea proves viable, it means heavy metal protective panels could be replaced by a plasma shield of just a few grams.

Astronauts travelling beyond the Earth's orbit would be at risk of cancer and other illnesses due to their long term exposure to cosmic rays. Some of these energetic particles are spewed forth during outbursts from the Sun. Others come from outside our solar system and are more mysterious in origin.

The Earth's magnetic field protects spacecraft in low Earth orbits, such as the space shuttle and International Space Station. But astronauts journeying to Mars would benefit from no such protection. Thick metal shielding could absorb the rays, but the extra weight that would need to be launched into space might make this an impractical approach.

"There's no really sensible solution in terms of materials," says John Slough of the University of Washington, in Seattle, US, who is leading a study of the plasma shield idea. "It's an Achilles heel of manned space travel."


Plasma bubble could protect astronauts on Mars trip

Looks like they're already working ona feasible solution to the problem...



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   
can you just create a strong and large enough magnetic field to deflect deadly space particle? Besides, that what the earth does, and it's magnetic field isn't even that strong.

also..

the reason people will never go to mars (in the near future) is because there's no reason to. The reason we went to the moon is to compete (and scare) the russians. There really was no reason to go to the moon other than to flex some muscles. Unless we find something really intresting on mars or if there's another space race. I don't see a point of wasting billions on an empty trip.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by NegativeBeef]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Some information i have gathered over the last few years about just how real ( or apparently not real ) the threat of radiation and exposure to such extremes really is.


HOW HOT ARE DR. HAUGHTON'S RUNNING SHOES?

The running shoes of Dr. Dennis Haughton of Phoenix, pictured on page 1 of The Medical Tribune, July 23, 1986, were said to radiate at a rate "over 100 times background" afterbeing in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident.This report is typical of media accounts, which give the radiation rate in units of "times normal."How hot is that? It is impossible to say.The background in Colorado is "2.5 times normal" if Texas is defined as normal (250 vs 100 mrem/yr).An area near the Library of Congress receives"700 times normal" if normal is defined as what Congress allows at the boundary line of a nuclear power plant.A whole year's exposure of "50 times normal" is within NRC standards for occupational exposure.These figures refer to total body irradiation. The volume of tissue irradiated is crucially important.The safest available treatment for hyperthyroidism -- radioactive iodine -- delivers up to 10,000 rads (10 million millirads) to the thyroid, and about 14 rads to the body. Also, the duration of exposure is important. A dose of "100 times background" for a week might subject a person to the dose he would have received from living in Colorado for a year (where the cancer rate is lower than elsewhere.) A meaningful report of radiation exposure would give the dose (rems, rads, etc). But journalists seem to be more interested in alarming the public than in enlightening them.

www.oism.org...



Both issues are "hot." Comparison of doses may influence the future foundations of radiation protection principles and regulations. The report's appendix on Chernobyl (115 pages and 558 references) is obviously politically incorrect: it denies the claims of a mass health disaster caused by radiation in the highly contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union.

At the global scale, as the report shows, the average natural radiation dose is 2.4 mSv per year, with a "typical range" reaching up to 10 mSv. However, in the Annex on natural radiation, UNSCEAR presents data indicating that this dose range in some geographical regions is many tens and hundreds times higher than the average natural global dose, or than the currently accepted annual dose limits for general population (1 mSv) and occupationally exposed people (20 mSv).

No adverse health effects related to radiation were ever observed among people exposed to such high natural doses. This strongly suggests that the current radiation standards are excessively, and unnecessarily, restrictive.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...



Fortunately, the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation doses are not too large. As will be explained in Appendix B, a person who is healthy and has not been exposed in the past two weeks to a total radiation dose of more than 100 R can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being incapacitated.


Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.

The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.

The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts



In his presentation at the DDP meeting in Las Vegas, Myron Pollycove, M.D., of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission highlighted the following:

* Aging and cancer result from DNA alterations caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Normal oxidative metabolism causes at least a million such changes per cell every day. Normal background radiation causes about two.
* Low-dose ionizing radiation stimulates the body's enzymatic repair mechanisms. DNA repair is tripled by exposure to 25 cGy (25 rads). A tenfold increases in background radiation from 1 mGy/yr to 10 mGy/yr stimulates overall DNA damage control by 20%.
* Total body irradiation or TBI (e.g. 150 r in fractionated doses in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) has improved survival compared with chemotherapy alone.
* TBI in mice, especially when combined with chronic caloric restriction, prevents or causes regression of spontaneous mammary tumors.
* Dr. Pollycove summarized a number of epidemiologic studies that support hormesis, involving populations in areas with high background radiation; survivors of the atomic bombs or radiation accidents; nuclear workers; and patients exposed to multiple fluoroscopies. He also presented experimental evidence of life extension effects, immune stimulation, suppression of malignant transformation of cells, slowing of tumor growth, and reduction in number of metastases.

``All statistically significant adequately controlled epidemiologic studies,'' he writes, ``confirm low doses of radiation are associated with reduced mortality from all causes, decreased cancer mortality, and may be protective against accidental high- dose radiation.'' In US nuclear shipyard workers, for example, those with a cumulative exposure between 0.5 and 40 cSV or rem had a standardized mortality ratio 16 standard deviations below that of matched nonexposed workers for all causes, and 4 SDs less than nonexposed workers for all malignancies.

www.oism.org...


And then concerning Chernobyl

The Truth About Chernobyl Is Told

Chernobyl the biggest bluff.l

The myths of Chernobyl.

Myths and misconceptions on Chernobyl

Chernobyl: myths, reality

Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident

Now i do not sanction the idea of a nuclear war ,to test just how deadly these effects can be, but i do propose that we not give away ALL our freedoms assuming ( curtesy of our friendly governments)that we have no alternatives. One does not even have to mention how safe nuclear energy generation clearly is...

Stellar



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
jra, you are right.

this is one way to do it...and they don't need superconducting materials. there may be other ways.

i can't believe they haven't figured it out yet.

they are wasting their time investigating materials that stop radiation, however they wouldn't waste their time investigating materials that may *compliment* what i have already mentioned.

i'm sure they'll get there...one day.

cheers

js


Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by GSA
How about a plasma coating for the craft? create an energy field around it so it can just deflect the incoming radiation?? Like the Russians are said to be able to do to make a plane stealthy? Could it work?


magnetic/electrostatic shield concepts are being worked on for radiation shielding. Here are a few links I have bookmarked on the subject.

www.islandone.org...
www.hps.org...

Although this next concept is mostly for propulsion, it would also shield from radiation as well I'd think.
www.ess.washington.edu...
science.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Thank you all for some very thoughtful responses.
The proposed solutions are intrueging, but a solution to cosmic radiation would need an experiment to prove it works.
How would this be done?
Laika Jr. and Sam the chimp on a Mars return mission?
Cost estimates on the test program, anyone?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well, I honestly believe that humans will land on Mars in the next 50 years.

Anyways, even if we don't develop EMFs (Electro-Magnetic Fields) for spacecraft, we can just use the more primitive way and use thick hulls.
And if we construct the ship in orbit, it can be bigger and better.

Anyways, we do have a few reasons to go to Mars.
1. The human race are naturally explorers.
2. We're beginning to realise that it's not good to keep all your eggs in one basket.
3. We'll eventually need off-world living space for an increasing population.
4. The whole pride issue, who can get to Mars fiorst, and subsequently who can build a colony there first.

So anyways, I definately believe we'll go to Mars.



Also, as to how much money it would cost, well definately in the billions, I'm gonna say somewhere around 12billion, and that's assuming we use current technology.
If you think about it though, we've spent more than that on the war, and in general spend arounmd that amount on military/weapons development every few years.

[edit on 7/24/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Pride would be about allit's worth; does anybody know if the U.N. has a "Ican't claim this for_____ clause?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
Pride would be about allit's worth; does anybody know if the U.N. has a "Ican't claim this for_____ clause?

Well, technically no nation can claim territory anywhere in the solar system, like how it is with Antarctica, but that won't hold once we start going out into the system.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Of course man will go to Mars. We are all ready building the stage set for the filming of the landing based on what was shown to you from the previous rover missions we did in our studio.


On a more serious note: The History of Mankind is full of great undertakings involving great risk. Primitive man spread across the globe, traveling into unknown areas and facing unknown hazards. Ships set off into an unknown sea despite tales of sea dragons and worries of falling off the edge of the Earth. Perry risked his life in a race to the Pole, as did Hillary in the quest to reach the pinnacle of Everest. The Apollo landing on the Moon was full of known and unknown perils, yet with good providence we made it and mankind broke free of his Earthly bonds and set foot upon another celestial body.

The only real risk we face is one of will. Do we as a species have the will to make the next step further out? Will the nay sayers who ignorantly see Tang as the only result of our global space program, prevent us from reaching out to the stars? Mankind does indeed have the ability if the desire is there. Technical problems can and will be overcome if the spirit is willing. Will we instead ruin our world and kill each other off with wars and ignorance, or will we instead choose to fulfill our destiny in among the stars?
I for one, believe that we will find the greatness within ourselves and set foot on Mars, one day, perhaps even further. The choice is a simple one, Ignore the potential and stagnate, groveling in the dust, or further evolve into a space fairing people. History has shown us that great things can and have been achieved when the will is there. Mankind is a curious beast with great capacity for extending his abilities. If you believe we can, and more importantly SHOULD reach for the heavens, then I urge you to become vocal in your support for Space Research. Congress will sit on its heels while Bush wastes your dollars on war mongering. Without your support and guidance the path upward will be lost, or relegated to a distant and vague idea.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
aaaaa:


Originally posted by aaaaa
...but a solution to cosmic radiation would need an experiment to prove it works.
How would this be done?


Simple - just make sure magnetism can't penetrate the field.

If magnetism can't penetrate it, cosmic rays certainly won't be able to


Cheers

JS



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join