Space Radiation Too Deadly For Mars Mission

doublehelix · Mar 31, 2008

job1207 · Mar 31, 2008

It is pretty clear that you have to live underground on the Moon and on Mars. I need them to reorder my front loader. Problem solved. The soil on the Moon makes a great cement. Use the water in the ice caps or possibly in the walls of the craft themselves to build shelter. Instead of lava tubes, just land in a crater, or dig your own crater and cover it up.  and so on and so forth. What was that movie about Mars with Arnold. They already figured this out. You have to live underground.  Seinding up more than one craft should solve the weight and fuel problem. I just wonder how thick the water and dense plastic in the hull would need to be......Also, they will need an shielded RV in order to travel around on the moon and Mars, Space suits cannot possibly be made to protect a person on a surface mission. If you can get all of that up there at a reasonable price then you can stay on the Moon or Mars for a long time. I will go. Why not.

MeteorWayne · Mar 31, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by job1207</DIV>Yeah, once you're there, you can protect yourself.A few days to the moon is a reasonable risk.19 months to get to Mars is a whole different ballgame. Figure another month or two to build shlter.The problem (from a radiation standpoint) is not surviving there, but surviving the journey. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

qso1 · Mar 31, 2008

Space Radiation Too Deadly For Mars Mission By Charles Q. ChoiHowever, more research could reveal ways to handle the risks that radiation poses to space missions.  Posted by doublehelixJust another one of those articles that draw the reader with a sensational title. Then you find little tidbits such as the second line I posted which are the more mundane aspects of the article, but often the most important part.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

nec208 · Mar 31, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is pretty clear that you have to live underground on the Moon and on Mars. I need them to reorder my front loader. Problem solved. The soil on the Moon makes a great cement. Use the water in the ice caps or possibly in the walls of the craft themselves to build shelter. Instead of lava tubes, just land in a crater, or dig your own crater and cover it up.  and so on and so forth. What was that movie about Mars with Arnold. They already figured this out. You have to live underground.  Seinding up more than one craft should solve the weight and fuel problem. I just wonder how thick the water and dense plastic in the hull would need to be......Also, they will need an shielded RV in order to travel around on the moon and Mars, Space suits cannot possibly be made to protect a person on a surface mission. If you can get all of that up there at a reasonable price then you can stay on the Moon or Mars for a long time. I will go. Why not.     Posted by job1207</DIV>I'm sorry how does being underground help them or water?Why does the Space suits or space ship not protect them?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · Mar 31, 2008

This is something that pops up every now and then when news is otherwise slow. It's not really anything new.See this Uplink thread from 2006.Radiation is a known problem with known solutions. Nothing to see here. Move along. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

job1207 · Apr 1, 2008

right, the solutions are known, it is just a matter of working out how well folks are going to be protected and what not. Water plus cement plus some aggregate equals concrete. Space suits and space ships as currently constructed do NOT protect you for very long or against much at all if you are out of LEO. The article did mention weight trade offs. Well, that is the answer. Build the vehicle to protect the passengers. And then if needed send up another vehicle with supplies and what not. Keeping in mind weight constraints on both vehicles. When Griffin got in, he cancelled my front loader that Caterpillar was working on. I want to bury them once they get to the moon and to Mars. I say let's re order that front loader.

qso1 · Apr 1, 2008

I'm sorry how does being underground help them or water?Why does the Space suits or space ship not protect them? Posted by nec208Basically mass or the amount of material you surround yourself with. Spacesuits are designed to very specific tolerances which involves tradeoffs. Suits are normally designed for work in LEO. And at one time for working a few hours at a time on the lunar surface.But a spacesuit for an Apollo astronaut would not offer sufficient protection in the event of a solar flare and associated CME. They might not die but they would be exposed to much more radiation and may eventually die long after their moonwalk of radiation sickness.But being under thick layers of dirt or water provides better protection because there is simply more mass to stop more radiation from getting thru. This is one reason its been said your best bet in a nuclear war is to go deep underground.Underground facilities were actually built to house the governments key people in the event of a nuclear war leaving much of the surface radiation contaminated. We here on earth are protected by a combination of magnectic field and atmosphere.On Mars, the very thin atmosphere allows ultraviolet radiation to reach the surface. Therefore, your ideal situation is underground habitats. A surface habitat can only shield you so much unless you make it so heavy it then becomes impractical to even get it to mars.Think of it this way, those 5 mph bumpers the government mandates on cars are just that, 5 mph crash bumpers. They are not enough in a 35 mph crash.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

nec208 · Apr 7, 2008

So what is stopping them from making space-ships that will protect them?Is it the money problem? They could build space-ships that protect them ? Why not make better Space-suits?  ------------------------------------------------But being under thick layers of dirt or water provides better protection because there is simply more mass to stop more radiation from getting thru. This is one reason its been said your best bet in a nuclear war is to go deep underground. --------------------------------------------------Okay I understand , but how does water help? Water is not that density packet?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what is stopping them from making space-ships that will protect them?Is it the money problem? They could build space-ships that protect them ? Why not make better Space-suits?  ------------------------------------------------But being under thick layers of dirt or water provides better protection because there is simply more mass to stop more radiation from getting thru. This is one reason its been said your best bet in a nuclear war is to go deep underground. --------------------------------------------------Okay I understand , but how does water help? Water is not that density packet?   Posted by nec208</DIV> Actually it is, and it has lots of Hydrogen, which as I understands it helps with some of the radiation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Apr 7, 2008

This story is a good example of talking up a risk in order to get more research money.Not that more research into a major harzard for long duration spaceflight is a bad thing, but i do find such scare mongering tiresome and also misleading because it will always end up as healdines like this.First of all the current radiation limits are arbitary.  They are set so that someone who reaches them will not suffer a greater than 3% chance of dying fom cancer in their lifetime compared to the overal population.  It mean that when when astronauts as a whole suffle off this mortal coil not more tha 23% of them die from cancer compared to the 20% in the average population.  So nobody is talking about peoploe dying on the trip from radiation sickness.  But there is nothing special about that 3% figure.  It could easily be 2% or 4%.  It is just a number that looked good at the time it was formulated.Second, given realistic spacecraft design and crew ages, a Mars mission will fall below this limit.Third, what is the issue is the uncertainty to this figure.  While the calculated risk is below the limit, the upper parts of the error bar fall well outside it.  What the researchers want to do is shrink the error bars, which is a good thing.  Of course when they do there is a high probability, not a certainty, that the figure will remain below the limit.Just to remind people, there are only two types of radiation that really matter.  Cosmic rays, which need at least of a metre of shielding.  Solar particles, that need only 5 cm of shielding under normal conditions, but during solar storms 20 or even 30 cm is advisable.  Some people in this thread have mentioned ultra violet, but that does not penetrate the spacecraft or even a spacce suit. Radiation protection is  normally rated in terms of g/cm2.  A space suit offers 1 g/cm2, enough for short periods outside.  The LM offered 5 g/cm2, proof against normal solar radiation.  A spacecaft hull with heat shield can offer ~10 g/cm2 (the Apollo CM was 8, the Space Shuttle orbiter 11).  Good distribution of tanks and consumables, and modest mounts of plstic shielding can offer up to 18 g/cm, as on some ISS modules, even without a pressure hull.  Internal shielding of the order of 25 g/cm on a Mars-bound crew tranfer vehicle should be possible by a combination of the heat shield and good internal design. Small areas could gave shielding of at least 30 g/cm2, by simply having movable bladders of water.   On the surface of Mars the atmosphere, thin though it is, offers another 15 g/cm of shielding.  A pressurised rover will have a hull that offers at least 5 g/cm2, together with the atmosphere this means ~20 g/cm2 of shielding.  A metre of water offers 1000 g/cm, enough against most cosmic rays and equivalent to the shielding by our atmosphere.   This is what would be needed on a permanant station on the surface.  But is unlikely not to be worth the hassle for a short stay missions to the Moon, or even long term sorties to different locations.Cosmic rays are interesting.  You don't want too much shielding or you will generate secondary cosmic rays which are much more destructive.Jon  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 7, 2008

Jon, maybe I'm goofy, but what is the "g" in the formula you give? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Zipi · Apr 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jon, maybe I'm goofy, but what is the "g" in the formula you give? Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> I assume g = gram <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trailrider · Apr 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This story is a good example of talking up a risk in order to get more research money.Not that more research into a major harzard for long duration spaceflight is a bad thing, but i do find such scare mongering tiresome and also misleading because it will always end up as healdines like this.First of all the current radiation limits are arbitary.  They are set so that someone who reaches them will not suffer a greater than 3% chance of dying fom cancer in their lifetime compared to the overal population.  It mean that when when astronauts as a whole suffle off this mortal coil not more tha 23% of them die from cancer compared to the 20% in the average population.  So nobody is talking about peoploe dying on the trip from radiation sickness.  But there is nothing special about that 3% figure.  It could easily be 2% or 4%.  It is just a number that looked good at the time it was formulated.Second, given realistic spacecraft design and crew ages, a Mars mission will fall below this limit.Third, what is the issue is the uncertainty to this figure.  While the calculated risk is below the limit, the upper parts of the error bar fall well outside it.  What the researchers want to do is shrink the error bars, which is a good thing.  Of course when they do there is a high probability, not a certainty, that the figure will remain below the limit.Just to remind people, there are only two types of radiation that really matter.  Cosmic rays, which need at least of a metre of shielding.  Solar particles, that need only 5 cm of shielding under normal conditions, but during solar storms 20 or even 30 cm is advisable.  Some people in this thread have mentioned ultra violet, but that does not penetrate the spacecraft or even a spacce suit. Radiation protection is  normally rated in terms of g/cm2.  A space suit offers 1 g/cm2, enough for short periods outside.  The LM offered 5 g/cm2, proof against normal solar radiation.  A spacecaft hull with heat shield can offer ~10 g/cm2 (the Apollo CM was 8, the Space Shuttle orbiter 11).  Good distribution of tanks and consumables, and modest mounts of plstic shielding can offer up to 18 g/cm, as on some ISS modules, even without a pressure hull.  Internal shielding of the order of 25 g/cm on a Mars-bound crew tranfer vehicle should be possible by a combination of the heat shield and good internal design. Small areas could gave shielding of at least 30 g/cm2, by simply having movable bladders of water.   On the surface of Mars the atmosphere, thin though it is, offers another 15 g/cm of shielding.  A pressurised rover will have a hull that offers at least 5 g/cm2, together with the atmosphere this means ~20 g/cm2 of shielding.  A metre of water offers 1000 g/cm, enough against most cosmic rays and equivalent to the shielding by our atmosphere.   This is what would be needed on a permanant station on the surface.  But is unlikely not to be worth the hassle for a short stay missions to the Moon, or even long term sorties to different locations.Cosmic rays are interesting.  You don't want too much shielding or you will generate secondary cosmic rays which are much more destructive.Jon  Posted by jonclarke</DIV>There are few problems of this nature that can't be solved, given enough time, money, and the will to do them!  Whether we Americans still have the will is open to question!  For those who still doubt that the radiation and the zero gravity exposure on a Mars mission is beyond solution, I would remind them that at one time in history, the idea that the human body could withstand travelling on a railroad train any faster than 15 mph was beyond belief.  On October 13, 1947, there were many scientists that thought that the human body could not withstand going faster than Mach 1, because they thought the g-forces would go to infinity!  On October 14th, (then) Capt. Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, with a couple of busted ribs (from a riding accident at Pancho Barnes' "Happy Bottom Riding Club") proved them wrong!  I have no doubt that we will be able to solve both the radiation and low gravity problems for humans.  Or some country will.  (There is a school in suburban Denver that is currently offerring Mandarin Chinese to school children and adults!!!Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

neilsox · Apr 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sorry how does being underground help them or water?Why does the Space suits or space ship not protect them?  Posted by nec208</DIV> The space suit and space craft is effective protection from very small particles (such as electrons and protons) traveling much less than c, but very fast particles and gamma rays can pentrate many meters of metal etc. Under ground is presently the only viable protection, but we may develop magnetic and/or electrostatic protection in a decade or two.   Neil

qso1 · Apr 10, 2008

but how does water help? Water is not that density packet? Posted by nec208The link below explains a lot about radiation protection but where water is concerned, water is dense enough to slow or stop certain types of radiation. Some radioactive particles can be stopped by nothing more than a sheet of paper. The link below gives a good rundown on the variious types of radiation and what can stop it.Alos take a look at Jon Clarkes post on how radiation risk is talked up to get more research dollars. His response IMO is quite accurate with regards to radiation and the actual hazards posed by it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

JonClarke · Apr 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I assume g = gram Posted by Zipi</DIV>Correct! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Apr 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The space suit and space craft is effective protection from very small particles (such as electrons and protons) traveling much less than c, but very fast particles and gamma rays can pentrate many meters of metal etc. Under ground is presently the only viable protection, but we may develop magnetic and/or electrostatic protection in a decade or two.   Neil Posted by neilsox</DIV>With cosmic rays a lot depends on exposure times.  The longer the exposure time the higher the risk.  Also whether you are in interplanetary space or on a planetary surface or in low orbit.  On the surface or low orbit you get only half the cosmic ray dose, that from the zenith, as the planet shields you in the nadir hemisphere.For a permanant or semi-permanant facility on the surface of the Moon and Mars a metre of regolith can reduce exposure to effectively zero.  Such protection is much more difficult to go with interplanetary flight or space stations because of the mass penalty of the shielding makes it impractical.  Which is why you wan8/30t people to spend most of their time on the surface, where they also are the most useful. Since people will be spending most of their time in the station such shielding would reduce cosmic ray exposure for a 6 month lunar mission by 94% (assuming one 8-hour EVA per person every 3 days during daylight).  For a 30 month Mars mission with an 18 month surface stay such shielding would reduce total exposure by 20% (again assuming 8 hour EVAs every three days).  The reduction is less because of the time spent in transit when shielding is impossible.  of course for permanant settlements such shielding is a must. Gamma rays are not normally a problem, unless you hae a reactor on board.Active protection, using magnetic and electric fields, may be useful against solar radiation, but not cosmic rays.  Shielding against cosic rays requires colossal power and impractical field intensities.  For solar radiation there would be a trade off between the mass of the power and field generating equipment, against that of passive shielding to consider, and the effect of the shielding fields on other equipment.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

fractionofadot · Apr 11, 2008

I wonder could this, or later versions of this make all the difference in allowing for a manned mission to Mars:Drug to protect against radiationA drug which may protect the body against damage from radiation has been developed by US scientists. It is hoped it could make radiotherapy safer for people with cancer and could also be used in the event of a "dirty bomb" or nuclear disaster. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341336.stm  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bearack · Apr 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wonder could this, or later versions of this make all the difference in allowing for a manned mission to Mars

rug to protect against radiationA drug which may protect the body against damage from radiation has been developed by US scientists. It is hoped it could make radiotherapy safer for people with cancer and could also be used in the event of a "dirty bomb" or nuclear disaster. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341336.stm Posted by fractionofadot</DIV> Not sure that would work against solar radiation.  Looks to be more for nuclear radiation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

l3p3r · Apr 11, 2008

Great explanation Jon, thanks!! It's great to see some non-spin on the topic for a change...And I agree, articles like these have become quite a bore, I think the authors of them are somwhat irresponsible.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neilsox · Apr 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but how does water help? Water is not that density packet? Posted by nec208The link below explains a lot about radiation protection but where water is concerned, water is dense enough to slow or stop certain types of radiation. Some radioactive particles can be stopped by nothing more than a sheet of paper. The link below gives a good rundown on the variious types of radiation and what can stop it.Alos take a look at Jon Clarkes post on how radiation risk is talked up to get more research dollars. His response IMO is quite accurate with regards to radiation and the actual hazards posed by it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection Posted by qso1</DIV> By thickness, aluminum has more than twice the radiation shielding power of water, steel, almost 8 times better than water. shielding is about equal by mass, and water is needed for various purposes, and can be pumped to where the shielding is most needed. Also water has less tendency to be come contaminated with radioactive issotopes than most other choices for shielding.    Neil

Endeavour_me · Apr 13, 2008

Wow, ^^^^ You sound like you have a solution for us, well hopefully in the near futurre NASA and others will conquer this problem and send men and women on their way to the moon and Mars,,,   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Apr 16, 2008

By thickness, aluminum has more than twice the radiation shielding power of water, steel, almost 8 times better than water. shielding is about equal by mass, and water is needed for various purposes, and can be pumped to where the shielding is most needed. Also water has less tendency to be come contaminated with radioactive issotopes than most other choices for shielding. Neil Posted by neilsoxOne of the advantages for using water as radiation shielding would be that it could originate as drinking water and once it becomes unusable for human consuption, pump it to where it is utilized for radiation protection. Water will still have to be contained by aluminum or steel.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

scottb50 · Apr 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By thickness, aluminum has more than twice the radiation shielding power of water, steel, almost 8 times better than water. shielding is about equal by mass, and water is needed for various purposes, and can be pumped to where the shielding is most needed. Also water has less tendency to be come contaminated with radioactive issotopes than most other choices for shielding. Neil Posted by neilsoxOne of the advantages for using water as radiation shielding would be that it could originate as drinking water and once it becomes unusable for human consuption, pump it to where it is utilized for radiation protection. Water will still have to be contained by aluminum or steel.  Posted by qso1</DIV>The real advantage of water is it could be used as propellant as well as for consumption and radiation protection. As for how it is contained I would much rather use composites because the are lighter and stronger.I have previously outlined a plan where water would be the primary source of power and propulsion throughout the mission. Solar collectors to run hydrolisers and fuel cells to provide electrical power. There are three advantages of the system: first fuel cells provide very stable power output a necessity with complex electrical components. two, biological waste could be removed and the water re-used over and over again as it is expelled by the fuel cells. Three as a simple means of storing consumable propellants until they are needed.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Space Radiation Too Deadly For Mars Mission

doublehelix

Guest

job1207

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

qso1

Guest

nec208

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

job1207

Guest

qso1

Guest

nec208

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Zipi

Guest

trailrider

Guest

neilsox

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

fractionofadot

Guest

bearack

Guest

l3p3r

Guest

neilsox

Guest

Endeavour_me

Guest

qso1

Guest

scottb50

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page