It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rover radiation data poses manned Mars mission dilemma.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:27 PM
The radiation problem for spaceflight has been known for some time. I think they were hoping suface time on Mars would yield less exposure. You can protect against protons with a magnetic field around the ship but gamma rays and cosmic rays would get through. On the surface you could build underground or cover surface structures with soil.

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by Lagrimas

I do not understand your post

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by Kaone

Look in 6 months in deep space you would get 320mSv for a career astronaut or anybody 1000 would mean about 5% more chance of getting a fatal four days isn't going to be a great deal of rads.
Why we have not gone there? ask the American public who got bored and lobbied the whitehouse to stop wasting money.

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by boymonkey74

Exactly, people sponsors war and occupation. If the general public even cared to... well actually care where their taxes go this would not be a problem.

I for one hope that one day we would all come together and unite for the sake of science and exploration of not only space but planet earth.

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:15 AM
I saw a History Channel proggie some months back where they were talking about how to overcome this problem since Mars does not have a magnetic field or much of one anyways. They discussed how to use human waste as a shield as well as a magnetic field. It was a pretty informative show. It's been known and there isn't a lack of knowledge on this topic. Maybe by the person who wrote the new clip but not the people who are planning to do this. It's but one problem of the many that we have to overcome to get to mars. Another is gravity and the lack of durring the travel. There are many ideas in place to fix these issues. The big question is.. which one is more reliable.

It's not like they dont know.. they just have to find the best options to handle the issues.

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:47 AM
I love it how people put an anti-NASA slant on practically every piece of news that comes from them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What does real science have to do with charlatans selling tickets to Mars?

I probably shouldn't get frustrated, because this is ATS aka the home of conspiracy believers and delusional people, but seriously, can't we discuss a simple science article without people jumping in with "how long have they known this", "they never tell us anything straight away", etc.


To get back on topic, I think manned Mars missions are doable. There might be no civil astronauts allowed, but the military people might agree to take the risk in the name of science. I certainly hope this news doesn't write Mars off our manned space program list.

P.S. let's have a positive scientific article link:

Measurements taken by NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission as it delivered the Curiosity rover to Mars in 2012 are providing NASA the information it needs to design systems to protect human explorers from radiation exposure on deep-space expeditions in the future.

Curiosity's Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) is the first instrument to measure the radiation environment during a Mars cruise mission from inside a spacecraft that is similar to potential human exploration spacecraft. The findings reduce uncertainty about the effectiveness of radiation shielding and provide vital information to space mission designers who will need to build in protection for spacecraft occupants in the future.

edit on 31-5-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by wildespace

Have a star

The anti NASA bashing on here sometimes is incredible, especially since the source for most of the information we get on space is.....NASA

Trouble is, this will be used by the incredibly stupid to "prove" we didn't go to the moon. Someone on this thread has already hinted at such. I have come to the conclusion that the gene pool is actually pretty shallow in some places

On topic, as someone else stated, i sincerely hope that more funds are diverted to research on shielding and on more advanced propulsion systems. If we can cut the transit time from 8 months to 4 months then maybe, just maybe a mission will get the go in my lifetime.

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by wildespace

I'm not anti-nasa. It's a site I frequent and my children frequent often. However, this does not mean I agree with the concept of our war-like race populating the universe with the almost certainty - other life exists out there somewhere.

We are not entitled to that which is not our own. So until we solve our social problems and move up on the tier of moral and ethical responsibility to EACH OTHER - I don't think we should be spreading out looking for more room and resources until we can successfully manage ourselves in our own little sphere.

So while I support Nasa on many things - such as asteroid deflection - monitoring the sun - monitoring us and our effects on the magnetic field - monitoring strikes on other planets in our solar system so we are aware if a planet implodes or explodes and what's coming our way - I don't support manned space exploration at this time. That is just my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'd rather money and resources be spent on us for the time being. Solving issues such as war, hunger, and cultural separation - before we spread ourselves out across the galaxy.

We teeter dangerously close on tyranny in even our more progressed societies - and tyranny still exists in other less developed ones. I don't feel it's responsible to spread that around throughout the galaxy.


edit on 31-5-2013 by CirqueDeTruth because: double signature deleted

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:50 AM
Solar protons are easy to shield against, so part of this radiation wont affect astronauts. But most of the dose comes from high energy cosmic rays, and you need a meter of lead to shield against those. Maybe if the habitat was surrounded by all the propellant, it would be enough.

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:52 PM
If they put all the human waste up front to shield the astronots
I pity them if they ever crashed the ship on landing.......
Besides there wouldnt be enough of it at first and the van Allen isnt that far out.....

Ive heard the story that the astronaughts could see flashes behind their eyelids which were stray particles zipping through their heads from time to they definately need much better shielding....
Perhaps CERN will reveal some yet deeper secrets....that will allow for force field or such deflection technology.....
But we wont see it.

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:39 PM
to me it sounds like someone doesn't want us to go there... I can't believe there isn't a way to shield effectively a space ship for this trip.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in