Slashdot Mirror
Cosmic Rays Could Kill Astronauts Visiting Mars
jvchamary writes "Given the recent stream of reports of 10th planets and the relative success of the NASA Discovery mission, it might again be time to get excited at the prospect of visiting the Red Planet. Unfortunately, New Scientist reports that Astronauts traveling to Mars would be exposed to so much cosmic radiation that 10% would die of cancer."
Not only is it cancer, it's space cancer. That's gotta be like 10 times worse ;)
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Also, 25% will become stretchy, 25% will turn invisible, 25% will burst into flames, and 25% will have their skin replaced by an orangey rock-like substance!
Ceci n'est pas un post.
We only send nine :)
#include ".signature"
So how would this be a limiting factor for a government that still subsidizes tobacco farmers? What if we only sent smokers? TFA article says that 10% would get fatal cancer sometime in their lives. Really, how is this different from those who self select themselves for a much increased risk of cancer through smoking?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
We've known this for quite a while.
I think they'd also have to go through the Van Allen radiation belts which could also be a concern. Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon was impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.
Apollo had timed things however to make it accross while radiation was at a minimum. However, if they'd be on such a long trip -- timing will have to be a lot more precise.
Short of hauling up lead plates, I don't know what they'll do.
I'd be willing to take a 10% risk of cancer later in my life in order to see mars. Hell i'd take a 10% chance of not surviving the trip home.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
2.2 Sieverts is 220 rems. that's like 8-10 times previous estimates. And you've got to wonder about quotes like this:
Others suggest more radical solutions might be needed. "Radiation exposure is certainly one of the major problems facing future interplanetary space travellers," says Murdoch Baxter, founding editor of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. "Unless we can develop instantaneous time and space transfer technologies like Dr Who's TARDIS."
Wasn't mini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion supposed to offer robust shielding, in addition to efficient travel?
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Let's never leave our little shielded planet because we might get cancer!
Seriously, I'm sure that there are thousands of people who would line up, despite that 10% chance of a disease that some of them will get anyway. I would.
Go to Mars, keep working on cancer cure. Everybody wins.:-)
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
Space is dangerous?!? Wha??!!! Wow.. We better not go there then! RUN AWAY! Someone might die! *gasp* *shock* Horror!!!!!!1111one!
I think any first travelers to Mars would have far more impressive ways to die than a 10% chance of radiation damage. The ship could explode, they could run out of food, they could hit any of the various bits of rock out there, they could get abducted by the aliens that live on the other side of the moon, they could slip and fall while getting out the shower cracking their skulls open, etc.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
If they're talking about current chemical propulsion technologies, then yes, they'll be out there for the better part of a year. If we get dig out nuclear propulsion technology that's already been developed, such as NERVA, and other things such as gas core nuclear rockets, it's simple to cut the trip down to weeks while simultaneously packing dozens of tons of extra shielding.
Basically, yeah - we have several miles of comparatively dense atmosphere (or the entire bulk of the earth) protecting us from cosmic rays. Future Mars astronauts will pretty much have a few layers of tinfoil.
Still, it is possible to design ships which will shield passengers from the worst of the rays, but these tend to be prohibitively heavy (= prohibitive amounts of fuel) because of all the additional shielding.
The best alternative I've seen yet were plans to build a ship where all the water and other supplies were stored around the outsides of the ship, and the actual crew living compartment was a small space right in the middle - this uses water and fuel (the bulkiest of the supplies) as additional shielding, but it still carries a much elevated risk of irradiation and/or cancer than staying put on earth.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
I know you're joking, but I think a number of slashdot readers are thinking, "yeah, why can't they just shield them".
I'm not sure I see the point of even going to Mars in the first place; like Kennedy's moon trip, going to Mars will get us nothing. Things are just too impractical to get anything useful done on either planet. The futurists all argue, "well, SOME day it'll be practical". Wasn't this the same group that predicted we'd have, ten years ago, flying cars, transporters, faster than light travel, etc?
Please help metamoderate.
Again, I'm reminded of stories of voyages of discovery from 200 years ago. The crew sailing with Captain James Cook actually fared better than most, according to Wikipedia:
At that point in the voyage, Cook had lost no men to scurvy, a remarkable and unheard-of achievement in 18th century sea-faring. He forced his men to eat such foods as citrus fruits and sauerkraut -- under punishment of flogging if they did not comply -- although no one yet understood why these foods prevented scurvy. Unfortunately, he sailed on for Batavia, the capital of the Dutch East Indies, to put in for repairs. Batavia was known for its outbreaks of malaria, and, before they returned home in 1771, many in Cook's crew would succumb to the disease, including the Tahitian Tupaia, Banks's secretary Herman Spöring, astronomer Charles Green, and the illustrator Sydney Parkinson.
Would it be that much worse to be afflicted with cancer in the 2000's than with malaria in the 1700s? At least we have morphine now.
The suggestion that brain ailments might afflict spacefaring explorers strikes a familiar chord as well:
Cook returned to Hawaii in 1779. On February 14 at Kealakekua Bay, some Hawaiians stole one of Cook's small boats. Normally, as thefts were quite common in Tahiti and the other islands, he would have taken hostages until the stolen articles were returned. However, his stomach ailment and increasingly irrational behaviour led to an altercation with a large crowd of Hawaiians gathered on the beach. In the ensuing skirmish, shots were fired at the Hawaiians and Cook was speared to death.
Another factor to keep in mind is the motivation of the sailors. For one thing, conditions at home didn't offer much better chance at longevity. But perhaps more importantly, Captain Cook believed in the medicinal value of large quantities of beer:
The custom of allowing British seamen the regular use of fermented liquor is an old one. Ale was a standard article of the sea ration as early as the fourteenth century. By the late eighteenth century, beer was considered to be at once a food (a staple beverage and essential part of the sea diet), a luxury (helping to ameliorate the hardship and irregularity of sea life) and a medicine (conducive to health at sea).
It sounds like we won't be exploring Mars until we have a population of would-be explorers that is 1) worse off here than in space, 2) led by a captain with a penchant for the lash, and 3) drunk off their arse.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
The situation is a lot more complicated than that. High atomic mass elements are great at causing collisions with the particles composing the radiation that you're trying to shield against. However, a direct collision isn't always the best thing.
Case and point: The best way to shield against solar radiation is high atomic mass materials. Even moderate materials, such as aluminum, should work quite well if you plate it on thick enough.
But what happens when GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation) strikes that shielding? You often get bremsstrahlung ("braking radiation") - the single particle is instead replaced with a shower of much more dangerous particles. Even worse, these particles are released partway or even all the way through the shielding.
The best way to shield against GCR is hydrogen in huge quantities to decelerate the particles - this generally means either your fuel or plastics in the skin. But that doesn't shield well against solar radiation. In short, what you end up needing is a complex layered system. The exact design? That's still a wide-open question. We know we can pack enough aluminium to stop solar-radiation-only (including a small shelter for storms) without having too heavy shielding requirements. Factor in bremsstrahlung, however, and it's a wide-open question.
By the way, to those who suggest "active shielding" (creating a magnetic field around the craft to deflect radiation) - studies show that it won't work to stop GCR (only solar).
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.