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.

 

Nautilus-X

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

crazyewok

Its a shame people dont pay attension in there science classes.



Shielding that would completely block those rays would be "meters thick" and too heavy to be used aboard a spacecraft, said Eddie Semones, a radiation health expert at NASA's Johnson Space Flight Center.


Truly a shame




posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
It's a very pretty rocket ship...but, really, don't you think that 3.7B would be much more well spent on paying for additional food stamps and other entitlement programs?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

IAMTAT
It's a very pretty rocket ship...but, really, don't you think that 3.7B would be much more well spent on paying for additional food stamps and other entitlement programs?

NO!

World population is increasing, world resources are decreasing.

Theres only one solution, expansion into the solar system!

Food stamps and welfare are a band aid at best,



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


Were talking about increased cancer rate exposure not insides liquify from radiation poising levels.

Id take the increased cancer risk for a 1 or 2 year trip.

Anyway i believe they made those estimates useing current chemical rocket models. Quite frankly chem rockets have no buisness for anything but earth to LEO journys. If you put a NERVA engine or some other novel engine on it you would reduce transit time by alot and therefore exposure.

Plus the thing is also to be built in orbit not launched from earth so for a billion more im sure they could modify the thing with some better radiation sheilding



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

IAMTAT

crazyewok

IAMTAT
It's a very pretty rocket ship...but, really, don't you think that 3.7B would be much more well spent on paying for additional food stamps and other entitlement programs?

NO!

World population is increasing, world resources are decreasing.

Theres only one solution, expansion into the solar system!

Food stamps and welfare are a band aid at best,


But, just think how many new Democrats we'll be able to elect with another $3.7B in entitlement spending. What better way to save the planet is there than that?


Keep your political left/ right crap out of here.

This isnt the place.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I think it's very germane to the discussion.
Out of control social spending has been the downfall of the U.S. space program. Something I happen to support.

I think it's a crime how politicians have sacrificed these valuable science missions simply to get elected by rerouting tax dollars towards bloated entitlement programs.

Even though you insult me, I like your thread, so I'll let you keep the S&F I gave you.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


i still fail to see where in the two links of the op it is stated that this ship has another way of propulsion that will make trips shorter



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Indigent
reply to post by crazyewok
 


i still fail to see where in the two links of the op it is stated that this ship has another way of propulsion that will make trips shorter


Actually in the secound link it points out it has a modular design so you could put newer engines on.

Plus as i said as its not to be launched from earth in one go but built in stages more radiation sheilding could be added.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


how they calculate the price them, as they can put there things that aren't even developed, having a price there without knowing what is required seems to be a problem.

This is no a ship this is a lego concept with a made up estimate of what it cost, it doesn't says anything of materials dimensions anything, its more like they are just saying that a ship could be build in space and the living quarters can have a centrifuge

edit on 5-1-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

IAMTAT
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I think it's very germane to the discussion.
Out of control social spending has been the downfall of the U.S. space program. Something I happen to support.

I think it's a crime how politicians have sacrificed these valuable science missions simply to get elected by rerouting tax dollars towards bloated entitlement programs.

Even though you insult me, I like your thread, so I'll let you keep the S&F I gave you.


Maybe maybe not.
I do agree with you on spending prioritys.

But maybe a thread on space exploration and explotation over welfare programs on the social issues or political forums would be in order? Make one and il happly support your stance on the issue



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Indigent
reply to post by crazyewok
 


how they calculate the price them, as they can put there things that aren't even developed, having a price there without knowing what is required seems to be a problem


Guess thats a queation for the NASA finance department



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Long post, typed up as I read through the thread. Not in it for post count, so everyone gets the same one.


reply to post by crazyewok
 


I like the idea too. Anything that furthers our reaches into space is a good thing in my book!

I've also been a big fan of using centrifuges to provide some gravity. I'm in favor of a tandem system of contra-rotating centrifuges. One could lead to changes in trajectory that would have to be corrected or accounted for, which could lead to more use of fuel. At the same time, it would take more fuel to power a second one. Catch 22, I suppose.

I do like the strategy of it being used as a stopover for other locations. That should be a key component for making headway into the cosmos. Using other craft to ferry people, supplies, and parts back and forth instead of using this as the main craft of transportation would surely help keep costs down. The modular and compartmentalization aspects of the design is also great, as it will allow for newer technology and parts to be easily replaced.

Sadly, I do think it's a pipe dream. People won't get on board for the cost. They'll say that the US$3.6B price tag is too much when it can be spent elsewhere. People will clamor for social projects, and the leaders of our country will say that is where the money will go, but we all know it will ultimately end up going into the military, corporations, or right into the pockets of our leaders.

reply to post by Indigent
 


Where is the data to back this up? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc...

reply to post by Indigent
 


Where do you get this idea from as well? The reality show idea is crazy and probably won't get off the ground, but if it gets people talking about space exploration and brings the topic to the mainstream I'm good with it. If it does happen, I do suppose you are right that it would be landing corpses on Mars. It is billed as a one-way trip, after all.

As far as missions planned by governments and more level-headed people go, I believe they all account for return trips. Yes, there is a lot of danger involved, but the science, prestige, and future economic potential of it surely makes things worth it in the long run.

reply to post by JadeStar
 


Using this as an Aldrin Cycler (or any other form of Earth-Mars cycler) is a fantastic idea! Having two at opposite ends would make for a very convenient and timely manner of getting people there and back easily. Plus, the fuel could be replenished on each trip past Earth. No need to send large supply and personnel capsules back and forth when the craft is on an orbit that does most of the work for us!

The downside is that it would leave those on Mars without anywhere to go in case of an emergency that would require evacuation off planet. A large CME or planet-wide dust storm isn't something I would want to be planet bound for in the early stages of exploration and colonization. Those are just the first, easy examples that come to mind.

reply to post by Indigent
 


While radiation similar to cleaning Fukushima isn't all that great, it isn't too bad either. Also, it would not be as bad as the Fukushima clean up. You're exaggerating.

You also have to take into account the duration and strength of the exposures. Most of the workers cleaning Fukushima have experience acute exposure, which is a high dosage in a short amount of time. This is opposite to what would generally be experienced in space travel, which would be categorized as chronic, meaning a low dosage over a long period.

Most of the workers for Fukushima, when it first happened, did not receive more than 180 mSv of radiation. Now that things are slightly under better control, I think it is a fair assumption that the radiation exposure for clean up workers is even less. (The recommended maximum dosage limit for people working in these situations is 250 mSv.)

The average dose people receive yearly is about 4 mSv. Most of this comes from natural sources, though it can be higher from medical scans, where they live, and what their career is.

The lowest single dosage of radiation that is clearly linked to an increase in cancer rates is 100 mSv.

Single doses of 400 mSv are where radiation sickness typically begins. At this point, it is still highly treatable and should not cause death.

Exposure to a single dose of 1000 mSv (1 Sv) will show an increased risk of about 5% in having cancer at some point in your life.

At a single dose of 2000 mSv (2 Sv) is where severe radiation sickness sets in. It is still treatable, but death due to the poisoning is more likely.

A single dose of 4000 mSv (4 Sv) is almost going to be fatal, though with prompt treatment there is still a chance of surviving, albeit a slim one.

A round-trip to Mars, not accounting for exposure to a CME, is going to result in exposure to roughly 600-700 mSv over the course of the entire trip. That is not accounting for any stay on the planet. Of course, this would be over time and not all at once.

My numbers are from memory, so I apologize if they are incorrect.

reply to post by Indigent
 


Water is actually incredibly great at shielding radiation. Alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta particles by aluminum and other foils layered with plastic, glass, or water to mitigate the generation of x-rays.The water, as well as other compounds rich in hydrogen, do an excellent job of stopping neutrons. This is why water is used as the moderator in most nuclear reactor designs.

reply to post by JadeStar
 


Very well stated.

reply to post by IAMTAT
 


This is a general response to your posts (the second one was deleted, but it was quoted in another person's post)... Sarcasm? I'm not a regular on the boards enough to know anyone's sense of humor around here. If so, it made me chuckle. The deletion of the second post makes me think it was otherwise though.

reply to post by Indigent
 


I may have missed that. Where did anyone say that this craft would allow for shorter trips? Not being pedantic, I even went back and skimmed the thread and didn't see anything of the sort.

reply to post by Indigent
 


I'm sure the costs have been calculated much in the way costs for anything are calculated. Lots of accountants and contractors. All costs are made up until the bills are to be paid. Ever had a contractor work on your home? Lol!
edit on 1/5/2014 by cmdrkeenkid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   

crazyewok

JadeStar



Do you know anything about exposure time vs dosage? Or the difference between alpha, beta particles and x-rays and gamma rays?

I guess not.

Pity. It would have been an interesting intelligent conversation.

In summation radiation exposure and the amount of shielding needed on a trip to Mars varies by how long the trip is, which depends on your propulsion system. It also depends on when the trip would be as the solar flux varies in its X-ray levels depending on where in the Suns solar cycle it is.

Radiation in space has been known about for ages and people like Robert Zubrin have done a lot of research on it. This is nothing new nor unplanned for.

edit on 5-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

^^what he said.

Its a shame people dont pay attension in there science classes.



She. It's funny when people who have no background in the relevant fields go off half cocked at experts who have invested plenty of time studying the problem. There's a good rant on this on last night's ATS Live show - 193 (There's a battle on for your mind was the segment).


As has been said, water is a great shield and the radiation actually could be used to sterilize waste water in a closed loop system.

edit on 5-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Oppps my mistake, well he she? it was a 50/50 guess



Im a Microbiologist so I wont ever claim to be a expert on radiation (though I have had to have training in handling certain radioactive equipment) but it does amuse me how people completely misunderstand radiation. There so mnay types and exposure limits. Its not a case of all radioaction=bad and all bad radiation= certain death.


But like you said the water sheilding is a good method and kills two birds with one stone really.
edit on 6-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
you people are incredible of course water is good shielding i said that dint i, tons of water is that, tons of water not really feasible to get to space as stated by nasa.

so i provide links i provide numbers and the only thing you say is you know nothing you dont have background blah blah blah, did you read anything of what i provide, is the world upside down?


you people are tick as hell



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join