Astronauts Will Get Dumber on Their Way to Mars

a reply to: Phage

Makes sense. Venus is theoretically still volcanically active though, could geological activity on Venus explain the remaining atmosphere it has?

a reply to: Neutrality
Earth is also volcanically active.

I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining" atmosphere. The density of the Venusian atmosphere is 93 times that of Earth at the surface. It is not until 50km above it's surface that the density of the atmosphere of Venus matches that of Earth's surface.

a reply to: Phage

Remaining was definitely the wrong word. Strong and vibrant better suits it. It's also (from what I've learned) that a normal volcanic moment on Venus is equivalent to a super-volcano eruption on Earth. While Earth has them in the 100's of thousand of years periods, Venus estimates them in the hundreds of years? Or did I read some pseudo-Venus babble?

a reply to: Neutrality
There are indications that Venus had a period of extensive volcanic activity long ago. More so than any other planet. There is also evidence of recent (if not current) activity.

There are indications that Earth has had periods of extensive volcanic activity long ago. We know there is current activity.

The reason Venus has a dense atmosphere in spite of having no planetary magnetic field is because its gravity is strong enough to maintain it.

a reply to: Phage

Since Venus and Earth are similar in mass, wouldn't it be assumed that Venus is much MORE volcanically active? I don't get how it's CO2 instead of sulfuric based, but then again I'm just a guy that likes this kind of stuff, no real education other than what I've taught myself.

a reply to: Neutrality

Since Venus and Earth are similar in mass, wouldn't it be assumed that Venus is much MORE volcanically active?

Was more volcanically active than Earth. Yes, the available evidence shows that it was.
It cannot be assumed that it is currently more volcanically active than Earth.

Getting way far from the topic though.

a reply to: Phage

Not really off-topic though, understanding Venus WILL help us on our way to Mars. Even if it's just planetary positioning, size, mass, orbital periods, outside interference, etc...(I could go on and on, you'd think I work at NASA LOL) Even if it's as simple as understanding Venus' gravitational effects on Mars, it is on topic! In the solar system, it is ALL related, so talking of one planet or another is all related, hence when I can I pick your brain. It helps mine

a reply to: Neutrality
No. We have orbital mechanics pretty well figured out. That's been quite well demonstrated by interplanetary probes.

The atmosphere of Venus. The atmosphere of Earth. The existence of planetary magnetic fields really doesn't have much to do with the hazards of interplanetary travel.

Xenolite Apron material, some magneshielding material, plus a circulating temperature controlled wet suit should do the trick.

I also believe if you keep the Voyagers in a perpetual state of Isometrics they wont suffer the degradation of deep space travel. Playing chess would also improve their Hippocampus, along with Sexual stimulation as a non drug therapy.

The more i think about it, if they were subjected to electro shock therapy as well, several benefits could come from them. #1 grand mall Seizures would strengthen them #2. would have potential to release distress

a reply to: SPECULUM

You describe what I think as a "medically induced coma" which I think is scientifically unproven to resume humans to 100% after such state. It's the most likely viable transport accommodation, it comes with SERIOUS side effects. Also there HAS to be conscious people aware of the situation at all times, requiring that extra protection. The Xenolite material is interesting, and I cannot find a single link to NASA using this. Maybe there is a reason?
(gotta throw the foil hat on eventually lol)

originally posted by: Neutrality
a reply to: SPECULUM

You describe what I think as a "medically induced coma" which I think is scientifically unproven to resume humans to 100% after such state. It's the most likely viable transport accommodation, it comes with SERIOUS side effects. Also there HAS to be conscious people aware of the situation at all times, requiring that extra protection. The Xenolite material is interesting, and I cannot find a single link to NASA using this. Maybe there is a reason?
(gotta throw the foil hat on eventually lol)

en.wikipedia.org...
Bruce lee used to use electro shock to help with strength and speed, taking it to the Electroconvulsive_therapy, as i had suggested would help erase extreme psychological trauma/distress, and could only be administered by Nasa in those events. Attempting to keep an entire crew under stasis might prove to be fatal? in some respects its like lab rat experiments..rats get real smart real quick...Lol

I clearly see its therapeutic use

a reply to: lostbook

NASA is considering using the Astronauts own pee and poop to line the Spacecraft for shielding.

How, ah, delectable.

So: high-fibre diets and lots of liquid, eh?

Only one problem: I think they'll be needing to recycle that water.

a reply to: Phage

Water would be great, but it too is inordinately heavy.

How about a capillary tube on a space elevator? A super-thin strand of absorbent fibre. It would have to be shielded from direct sunlight or the water would boil, though, and that would take mass. You'd have to build a conduit. The strand wouldn't have to be 36,000km long; it could be divided up into shorter strands, with tiny chambers in between filled with absorbent material.

I bet Zaphod's going to shoot this down faster than an Su-23 can reach 30,000 feet.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: lostbook

NASA is considering using the Astronauts own pee and poop to line the Spacecraft for shielding.

How, ah, delectable.

So: high-fibre diets and lots of liquid, eh?

Only one problem: I think they'll be needing to recycle that water.

I'm sure they would recycle all of the water they used (make it as much of a closed system as possible). However, the closed system could include a daily total ration of water use that would be in the amount needed to make sure there was always water/waste water available for shielding.

But still, that's a "heavy"/massive amount of water that would need to be moved by the engines. All that mass of water would require a lot of fuel to move it.

Project Orion in the late 50s even to this day has promise. The idea was to use atom bombs as a propellant, allowing massive payloads to be thrust through space. What i found interesting was the Russians had claimed they invented an explosive that had the same characteristics as an atomic bomb, but without the nuclear fallout. So, if you could push a 10 story 100,000 ton rocket into space, you could outfit it with everything that would be needed in life support and shielding no matter where you wanted to go?

www.goodrx.com...

Back to he radiation from the sun. If the crafts outer hull had a highly polished corning Glass mirror finish, that was backed by Aerogel. it would deflect large amounts of solar energy and the Aerogel would Adsorb and defuse large amounts of heat transfer inside the hull

a reply to: rickymouse

But what advancement will come out of a trip to Mars

Seriously? Why...because its there. Primal quest since man first looked out of a cave and looked up and saw the stars.
What advancement comes out of creating smarter weapons? And yet for a fraction of the trillions spent on wars we would finance a trip to Mars.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: rickymouse

But what advancement will come out of a trip to Mars

Seriously? Why...because its there. Primal quest since man first looked out of a cave and looked up and saw the stars.
What advancement comes out of creating smarter weapons? And yet for a fraction of the trillions spent on wars we would finance a trip to Mars.

But all you are saying is it is alright to go to Mars because it is sort of a lesser of an evil. Do we need the wars either, of course not. But some people on top have created a need for these weapons so we are stuck with paying for them. They try to convince us we need to go to Mars too. I remember when we went to the moon, the bills were just about paid off and poof, they started to grow again as we started spending more on the scientific endeavors in the sixties. We were becoming an industrial power then though, and more people were paying taxes as there was a lot of people working on decent jobs created by the boom. We wasted the extra money going to the moon.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: rickymouse

But what advancement will come out of a trip to Mars

Seriously? Why...because its there. Primal quest since man first looked out of a cave and looked up and saw the stars.
What advancement comes out of creating smarter weapons? And yet for a fraction of the trillions spent on wars we would finance a trip to Mars.

But all you are saying is it is alright to go to Mars because it is sort of a lesser of an evil. Do we need the wars either, of course not. But some people on top have created a need for these weapons so we are stuck with paying for them. They try to convince us we need to go to Mars too. I remember when we went to the moon, the bills were just about paid off and poof, they started to grow again as we started spending more on the scientific endeavors in the sixties. We were becoming an industrial power then though, and more people were paying taxes as there was a lot of people working on decent jobs created by the boom. We wasted the extra money going to the moon.

Man was meant for more than the status quo of survival. The universe has always called to us..It is our destiny, no matter the Price

a reply to: SPECULUM

It is more important to monitor the health of this ecosystem than to go to Mars. If we don't destroy it we will have a place to live for a long time. Now, the more we increase a demand for metals and fuels to do things that are not necessary, the more we destroy the planet. If we mined the atmosphere for satellites and junk from rocket launches, we would get more metals cheaper than going to Mars.

The chances of a major asteroid strike that destroys the planet or a solar flare that kills everything on the planet in the next five hundred years is pretty slim. The chance that we destroy the ecosystem is pretty good, whether it be with nukes or pollution, putting an emphasis on altering the ecosystem's chemistry by natural or unnatural chemicals concentrated in the environment. Doing maintenance on a space ship is critical to it's continued operation. Think of this planet as a space ship.

I used to watch the space exploration science fictions and still do once in a while. But I know the difference between fiction and reality. Sure we could create space colonies, but it is not practical when we have people dying of malnutrition on this planet because they do not have food to eat. We should give these people the seeds and education to grow things naturally on their own without chemicals instead of sending them aid purchased from a big corporation.

It is not practical to be colonizing Mars. If a private company does this, where does it get the money. It usually comes out of the pockets of the middle class. It causes an increase of prices and everyone pays for it. Business men make profit on their investments. Execs get paid good salaries even though the company does not make any profit on the books. They can even go non-profit and still pay their execs huge salaries.

I don't see a problem with them monitoring our ecosystem and weather with satellites from space, that is a good scientific resource.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: SPECULUM

It is more important to monitor the health of this ecosystem than to go to Mars. If we don't destroy it we will have a place to live for a long time. Now, the more we increase a demand for metals and fuels to do things that are not necessary, the more we destroy the planet. If we mined the atmosphere for satellites and junk from rocket launches, we would get more metals cheaper than going to Mars.

The chances of a major asteroid strike that destroys the planet or a solar flare that kills everything on the planet in the next five hundred years is pretty slim. The chance that we destroy the ecosystem is pretty good, whether it be with nukes or pollution, putting an emphasis on altering the ecosystem's chemistry by natural or unnatural chemicals concentrated in the environment. Doing maintenance on a space ship is critical to it's continued operation. Think of this planet as a space ship.

I used to watch the space exploration science fictions and still do once in a while. But I know the difference between fiction and reality. Sure we could create space colonies, but it is not practical when we have people dying of malnutrition on this planet because they do not have food to eat. We should give these people the seeds and education to grow things naturally on their own without chemicals instead of sending them aid purchased from a big corporation.

It is not practical to be colonizing Mars. If a private company does this, where does it get the money. It usually comes out of the pockets of the middle class. It causes an increase of prices and everyone pays for it. Business men make profit on their investments. Execs get paid good salaries even though the company does not make any profit on the books. They can even go non-profit and still pay their execs huge salaries.

I don't see a problem with them monitoring our ecosystem and weather with satellites from space, that is a good scientific resource.

Mars may hold hope that can change man to be a better steward on earth. Its clearly not happening here now, no matter who we threaten or plead with