It's as simply as burying the base under about 3 meters of lunar regolith. Wow, you guys should tell NASA!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radi oactivemoon.htm
Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse." So apart from it being quite pointless to have astronauts sitting in an underground bunker, this doesn't work anyway.
Really, I don't get why ignorant comments are rated so highly.
We already have the technology to shield solar radiation. No, that's not true. And a lot of the damaging radiation does not come from the direction of the Sun. Neither the space shuttle nor space suits have sufficient shielding for extended operation outside Earth orbit. In fact, exploring the radiation environment of the Moon, how to shield damaging radiation and studying human tolerance to it are things NASA will be doing there.
Apollo missions relied on luck. A permanent base is a whole different ball game to what we have done so far.
The plain and simple fact is that DNA does not interact with light at microwave/radiowave frequencies. Therefore DNA can't get damaged by cell phone radiation.
However, the plain and a simple fact is that DNA gets copied a lot. An awful lot. If any of the many processes involved in copying, or even reading, the DNA were interfered with, then cancer might ensue.
Despite appearances, many biological processes are poorly understood, particularly the role of electric fields within living organisms. It is quite possible that external electro-magnetic fields have an adverse effect. While there is no obvious evidence of excess cancers caused by RF, the low level effects are pretty much unknown.
Predictably, many (US) Slashdotters trot out typical US hypocrisy and double standards. Spamhaus, a UK company, gets no sympathy in the US because "they should abide by the laws of the US when doing business in the US / jurisdiction of the US courts". OK, fair enough. But now a US company doing business in the EU is asked to abide by the laws of the EU - "no fair!" they cry.
We see this time and again, whether it's steel imports, GM crops or democracy. "We can impose tariffs, but you can't". It's the US way, or else.
I would have hoped that us nerds would be a bit more clued up on the world, and aware of being played like political pawns. Is it really too hard to pull your head out the sand and see the double standards that the US applies? This site is "news for nerds", but that often seems secondary to "knee jerk reactions by American patriots".
> The rotation of the earth is exactly what keeps the elevator up, much like swinging a weight on the end of a rope. Although it > would be theoretically possible to anchor the cable at the pole, the additional problems would far outweigh the benefits.
I am amazed at the many incorrect comments here, this is a typical one which doesn't make any sense. I thought we were supposed to be nerds who know about this sort of stuff?
It is almost completely unlike swinging a weight on the end of a rope. It's the rotation of the elevator cable itself that keeps it in orbit, not the Earth. A space elevator would effectively be a long thin satellite in geo-stationary orbit. Therefore, it can only be built near the equator.
While theoretically quite possible, a space elevator has huge practical problems to overcome, and for those reasons I doubt it could ever be built. Not least is the problem of powering the car over a 35,000+ km journey. I will be very impressed if they can achieve even 1% of that distance. Then there are the political and insurance implications to be dealt with.
> The rotation of the earth is exactly what keeps the elevator up, much like swinging a weight on the end of a rope. Although it
> would be theoretically possible to anchor the cable at the pole, the additional problems would far outweigh the benefits.
I am amazed at the many incorrect comments here, this is a typical one which doesn't make any sense. I thought we were supposed to be nerds who know about this sort of stuff?
It is almost completely unlike swinging a weight on the end of a rope. A space elevator would effectively be a long thin satellite in geo-stationary orbit. Therefore, it can only be built near the equator.
While theoretically quite possible, a space elevator has huge practical problems to overcome, and for those reasons I doubt it could ever be built. Not least is the problem of powering the car over a 35,000+ km journey. I will be very impressed if they can achieve even 1% of that distance. Then there are the political and insurance implications to be dealt with.
Slashdot Mirror
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_rad
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse." So apart from it being quite pointless to have astronauts sitting in an underground bunker, this doesn't work anyway.
Really, I don't get why ignorant comments are rated so highly.
Apollo missions relied on luck. A permanent base is a whole different ball game to what we have done so far.
However, the plain and a simple fact is that DNA gets copied a lot. An awful lot. If any of the many processes involved in copying, or even reading, the DNA were interfered with, then cancer might ensue.
Despite appearances, many biological processes are poorly understood, particularly the role of electric fields within living organisms. It is quite possible that external electro-magnetic fields have an adverse effect. While there is no obvious evidence of excess cancers caused by RF, the low level effects are pretty much unknown.
Predictably, many (US) Slashdotters trot out typical US hypocrisy and double standards. Spamhaus, a UK company, gets no sympathy in the US because "they should abide by the laws of the US when doing business in the US / jurisdiction of the US courts". OK, fair enough. But now a US company doing business in the EU is asked to abide by the laws of the EU - "no fair!" they cry.
We see this time and again, whether it's steel imports, GM crops or democracy. "We can impose tariffs, but you can't". It's the US way, or else.
I would have hoped that us nerds would be a bit more clued up on the world, and aware of being played like political pawns. Is it really too hard to pull your head out the sand and see the double standards that the US applies? This site is "news for nerds", but that often seems secondary to "knee jerk reactions by American patriots".
> The rotation of the earth is exactly what keeps the elevator up, much like swinging a weight on the end of a rope. Although it
> would be theoretically possible to anchor the cable at the pole, the additional problems would far outweigh the benefits.
I am amazed at the many incorrect comments here, this is a typical one which doesn't make any sense. I thought we were supposed to be nerds who know about this sort of stuff?
It is almost completely unlike swinging a weight on the end of a rope. It's the rotation of the elevator cable itself that keeps it in orbit, not the Earth. A space elevator would effectively be a long thin satellite in geo-stationary orbit. Therefore, it can only be built near the equator.
While theoretically quite possible, a space elevator has huge practical problems to overcome, and for those reasons I doubt it could ever be built. Not least is the problem of powering the car over a 35,000+ km journey. I will be very impressed if they can achieve even 1% of that distance. Then there are the political and insurance implications to be dealt with.
> The rotation of the earth is exactly what keeps the elevator up, much like swinging a weight on the end of a rope. Although it > would be theoretically possible to anchor the cable at the pole, the additional problems would far outweigh the benefits. I am amazed at the many incorrect comments here, this is a typical one which doesn't make any sense. I thought we were supposed to be nerds who know about this sort of stuff? It is almost completely unlike swinging a weight on the end of a rope. A space elevator would effectively be a long thin satellite in geo-stationary orbit. Therefore, it can only be built near the equator. While theoretically quite possible, a space elevator has huge practical problems to overcome, and for those reasons I doubt it could ever be built. Not least is the problem of powering the car over a 35,000+ km journey. I will be very impressed if they can achieve even 1% of that distance. Then there are the political and insurance implications to be dealt with.