"Curiosity's First Daredevil Stunt" Mars vehicle measureing radiation to see how safe it is for h

gold is the only metal that will keep the van allen radiation belt from microwaving the inhabitants.

There are all kinds of ways to mitigate the Radiation. One you could suround the living quarters with water, you can put a magnetic field around the craft, You can shield them with the fuel also though Im not sure I would put the fuel that close to the living areas. Vasimir Engines already require strong magnetic fields. You could probably desing them to act as a back up radiation shield for flares etc...

Originally posted by Phage

They make it sound safe, but i don't understand the chart in terms of radiation, can anyone here?

It doesn't really make it sound safe. It says they found pretty much what they expected to find.

RAD's readings are still being analyzed in advance of submission to a scientific journal, Hassler told me, but the exposure equaled "a few tens of percent" of NASA's career limit. And that's just for a one-way trip. Astronauts would face additional exposure during their work on Mars and on the return trip.

cosmiclog.nbcnews.com...

In other words the radiation absorbed by astronauts on a Mars mission would be dangerous. RAD will help figure out how dangerous.

While solar particle storms (the spikes in the data) can be dangerous they are sporadic. Cosmic rays, on the other hand, are continuous (though of lower flux levels).

That's why E.T.s are smarter than us, they colonized the moons only.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Outside of cost...there are better options than lead.

The problem is really the secondary radiation produced by particles hitting the atoms of the shielding material. The heavier the shielding material the worse the problem. This makes lead quite unsuitable. By this logic water (because of the hydrogen in it) would probably be the best material but it isn't light either.

It's a big problem.

edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

If water ends up being the best solution available to protect the crew, perhaps the crew compartments could be surrounded by the water tank or tanks.

That would be hard to do on mars though. Would building underground be enough to protect residents on mars?

Also, would the rest of the ship remain radioactive or would the secondary radiation from the particle bombardment of the materials the ship is made of go away quickly?

If your ship just keeps getting more radioactive over the years with every flare perhaps an electromagnetic shielding option might be best.

reply to post by Mkoll

If water ends up being the best solution available to protect the crew, perhaps the crew compartments could be surrounded by the water tank or tanks?

That is an option.

Would building underground be enough to protect residents on mars?

That would be helpful but exposure in transit is the greatest concern. Mars does have some atmosphere which will offer some protection. It has also been found that there are regions of Mars which have a magnetic field with a chance that they will offer additional shielding. This is all pretty much speculation at this point though, Curiosity will fill in a lot of blanks.

Also, would the rest of the ship remain radioactive or would the secondary radiation from bombardment of the materials the ship is made of go away quickly?

The ship does not become radioactive. The secondary radiation is the result of the release of energy from the cosmic (and solar) particles, not nuclear fission.

A few tens of a % of the career limit.

Using arbitrary numbers...
That means, if Career limit is 10,000.
One % of 10,000 is 100.
Then a few "tens of a percent" means 10-40 ish of 100.

LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the career limit to go to mars.

LESS THAN 1%

It is safe WITHOUT shielding (under current trip conditions.)

reply to post by Foxe

LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the career limit to go to mars.

No. A few tens of percent. Not tenths of a percent.
one ten = 10%
two tens = 20%
three tens = 30%
four tens = 40%

That is just on the way there. It is not safe.

Tens of a percent.

A percent indicates in the English language a singular percent. Which is 1%. 1% = a percent.

EDIT: NVM there is no A.

reply to post by Foxe

He did not say tens of a percent.
He did not say tenths of a percent.
He said tens of percent.
1 ten = 10
2 tens = 20
...

reply to post by Phage


Which I already pointed out I miss read. Thanks for reinforcing that fact and making it clear for others.