Slashdot Mirror
A Mars Mission's Greatest Challenge: Radiation
daSeiz writes "A New York Times article explores the possible effects of prolonged radiation exposure in deep space. Surprisingly, very little is known about the subject. We'll need to find innovative new ways of shielding spacecraft from fraction-of-lightspeed interstellar rubbish if we're ever to spend much time outside our own magnetosphere."
Tinfoil hats!
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
By the lack of consistent success in getting small probes to the red planet, I'd have to say that rushing out a manned mission should NOT be a priority.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Others include price, estimated at $30 billion to $60 billion, and launching enough food, supplies and fuel for a round trip. Any one of these could make the project impractical.
Well, not to sound too bitter, but going to Mars seems like a much better way to spend billions than going to Iraq.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I've done the math. It would take shielding 100x stronger than the stuff I use to build the hats that keep the psychotronic weapons from affecting my brain!
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
isnt every speed less than the speed of light a fraction of light speed?
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
They tried marijuana first, but the mice just got paranoid and started eating everything in sight.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Well we will have to reroute main engine power through the deflector dish to create a graviton feedback wave which will in turn allow us to turn the radiation into a non-harful form of chocolate
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Ummm... Actually, wouldn't the worst problem be bone density loss. That's one of the main problems on the ISS (International Space Station). Without the effect of gravity, bone density decreases. From what I understand it's a pretty nasty recovery. The time required to go to and from Mars plus mission time would require much more time in space than any ISS mission to date.
this problem is known, and Mars Society already has some solution for this problem.
Anyway if you also wanted to know about radiation on the planet Mars, be sure it is not dangerous.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
$30 to $60 billion to get to Mars? I know how to do it. Tell Dubya that Martians are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Ok, IANAP, but what would be the requirements to build a device capable of generating a magnetic field similar to the earth's magnetosphere? I would imagine that it's more efficient to generate a powerful magnetic field around a spaceship than it would be to line the whole thing with lead bricks...
/.s out there who may be able to answer this.
Would the energy requirements be far to high, or maybe the diameter has to be a certain size to deflect solar radiation around the ship? This is all pure non-researched speculation of course, but I know that there's more than a few intelligent
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
I do remember from my O'Neill colony advocacy days that people who knew more about the subject than I did recommended putting heavy, static shields around the colonies. One meter or so of solid waste products (think left over materials from mineral refining) in a layer around the colony could effectively shield the inhabitants from cosmic radiation.
This, unfortunately, makes for a pretty massive structure -- difficult to move around the solar system with contemporary propulsion. Travel is possible, especially with better propulsion, but more difficult than Star Trek et al. would have you believe.
This problem also could impact those proposals for Martian bases and settlements. I think Mars doesn't provide the same protection from radiation as Earth does. So, we could build bases on Mars -- just bury them underground. That's hardly what I think Zubrin and company want.
It might be interesting to see what can be done, if anything, with some sort of magnetic shielding. Although that could be a lot trickier again than SF TV shows imply.
I think problems like this are resolvable, but it's going to take a wide variety of efforts in multiple fields and directions to come up with solutions. Is there enough interest in space currently to make that kind of effort? Or can research in various fields be done with other goals in mind to solve this specific problem?
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
The problem is finding a shielding material that will absorb the radiation that will affect a human body, without transmuting radiation that would pass harmlessly through a human into radiation harmful to a human. Thus, you need a shielding material that is cheap and has the same absorbsion parameters as a human.
I suggest using spammers.
www.eFax.com are spammers
All the futurists depict Martian/Lunar colonies as above ground structures/modules launched from Earth. I am convinced that humans and robots that wish to remain permanently on the moon or Mars will need to bury themselves underground to protect themselves from the radiation. Further, I believe that as a precursor to these permanent outposts, we will send up mining robots to develop the required infrastructure.
OpenOffice tips:richhillsoftware.com
Here's the link: link
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Actually, my research last year on what it would take to get to Mars turned up that a very long hydrocarbon chain, like the hydrocarbons in plastic shopping bags, were the best way to transport lots of hydrogen atom shielding into space in a fine powder so it could be mixed into hydrogen clay with water at Mars.
There are also hydrogen material bricks in some sleeping stations on the ISS, I think they were first used on MIR.
This low-tech shielding was the inspiration for part of the filtering my Foil Hat in my sig.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
As the article indicates this is not that much of a problem if you design the crew compartment, or at least part of it, with a second hull and fill it with water which you'd use when you get there anyway. The major challeneges are:
- a pretty major propulsion system to get a heavy ship headed to Mars at a high rate of speed, presumably nuclear
- getting a lot of mass into LEO in the first place
It doesn't bode well for a new Moon or Mars mission that NASA can't even get mass in to orbit in a reasonable way. As I've said before throwing a bunch of money into NASA for a new space initiative is not a good idea. As the shuttle and ISS show NASA has developed fundemental institutional flaws which tend to result in large amounts of money being spent and not much being accomplished. To think you're just going to set a new goal and get a better outcome, with no structural change, is naive. Set up a new skunkworks if you want to accomplish something in space, hire the best people and reward them in a meritocracy, not a bureaucracy.
This article is also flawed in the same way as most discussions of a Mars mission. The goal SHOULD NOT be a round trip. The goal should be to start sending big unmanned cargo ships, carrying water, food, habitats, green houses and nuclear power plants to Mars and when they are arriving reliably send colonists on a fast one way trip to stay for the duration. The other major challenge finding men and women who are compatible and are willing to produce future versions of the colonists.
Spending 60 billion to send a few astronauts to pick up rocks and come back just isn't worth it. Apollo kind of proved this. As soon as landing on the moon had been done, missions to pick up rocks didn't hold public support.
A permenent colony is also kind of an underhanded way to insure long term funding for the program since once you have colonists on Mars you are going to have to do whats necessary to keep them alive, until they are self sufficient (though they may not be fully self sufficient for a long time for manufactured goods like electronics).
Once you have a self sustaining colony you are insured a perpetual mission and are free of the whims of whether Mars 18 will be funded or not.
@de_machina
We'll need to find innovative new ways of shielding spacecraft from fraction-of-lightspeed interstellar rubbish if we're ever to spend much time outside our own magnetosphere.
Great, space FUD.
I recommend The Case For Mars (amazon.com link), by Robert Zubrin. You can also check out The Case For Mars website.
The short version is this: we have all the technology we need to safely colonize Mars right now, and with less danger and hardship than the American colonists suffered four centuries ago. If funding were allocated today, the first scientists could be on Mars in 10 years, and colonists in perhaps 20. (The money required would be a small fraction of the US civilian-bombing budget.)
Safety from radiation is easy. Zubrin points out that you can just go to the center of the ship and stack your supplies around you to reduce radiation to acceptable levels, even in the case of a powerfuil solar flare. On the surface, you just build homes underground for everyday living. People here on Earth are doing this now just for the energy-bill savings. I think we can do it in order to colonize an entire planet.
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.