Originally posted by pushkin
I know that in 60s it was very heavy metal.
And because of that there was NO moon landing mission.
You see if you put this material aroung all spaceship, then it would be to heavy. If you don't put it at all, then no one will return from moon.!!
So how did USA landed on moon and what it this metal?
The astronauts were in the Van Allen Belt for a very short amount of time and did not have to worry about the radiation you are referring to. And yes, we did land on the moon. Build a bridge and get over it!
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
They just use aluminum shells i think right now.the traditional aluminum shells won't cut it during a multi-year mission.
But some scientists are also looking at alternative approaches to safeguard astronauts, ranging from the use of electric fields that create a protective shell around a spacecraft to basic ship design
Spacecraft designers may also use a ship's own cryogenic fluids as a radiation screen by arranging the cargo tanks containing them around crew compartments
The atoms of liquid hydrogen are particularly good as a screen for galactic cosmic rays because they don't fragment into secondary particles as much as heavier elements -- like lead -- do when bombarded by high-energy radiation. Those secondary particles, researchers said, could be just as harmful as space radiation itself.
I think even water could be used to help shield a ship
Originally posted by FreeMason
Pushkin is also wrong because it was for the Apollo missions they invented the synthetic materials we use to block radiation today.
And they had radiation suits at that time anyway. It was merely perfected.
Originally posted by Q
I've seen designs that propose using good 'ol water to block the radiation during treks to Mars. Not quite sure how that works, but the gist of it is lining the crew modules with water tanks (they have to bring some along, anyway), which would block the rays. I would personally question how safe this water would be for consumption afterwards...
Interesting bit about the macro-evolution, Gazrok. It makes sense...with ever-increasing levels of radiation in the environment, natural selection would tend to favor those less-susceptible to it. I would think this on a longer period, but who knows? Cancer rates have reportedly skyrocketed in the last few decades, although I'd also kind of question those figures. I kinda think that there was probably that much cancer all along, but our medical technology wasn't advanced enough to detect it. If you look 'back then', you'll see that a suspiciously large number of people died of "consumption", or other equally nonexistant diseases.