Did the Moon-men have a sense of humour?
- Thread starter lunar
- Start date
You're going much too far the other way.
Complete shielding for a trip to Mars and on the surface of Mars isn't currently possible. There would be an increased exposure to radiation compared with staying on Earth.
Astronauts who have spent even a few months in 0g exercising a lot every day have suffered non-trivial medical problems from doing so. "a bit of exercise" is nowhere near enough.
Better exercise equipment is being developed that will help, but even with better equipment and far, far more than "a bit" of exercise there is still an increased risk over staying in 1g.
According to your own argument, you're just reading different comic books to the person you replied to. Neither of you are right.
People will do it, of course, despite the risk. But the risk exists.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,798
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Regarding mavity and muscular atrophy, did anyone remember Tim Peake coming back for the iss? He had to be carried to hospital to regain some strength. He was there in space for 6 months.
To get to Mars could take between 6-12 months depending on the preferred route chosen, plus the return trip.
Tim peaked ran a marathon while in space on the excercise machine, can you out such equipment into a Mars landing craft?
For a trip that takes nearly two years to get there, get back and do some study, how much food, fuel, and resources do you need? According to NASA you'd need 60 shuttle launches worth...
This is something that needs to be considered.
To get to Mars could take between 6-12 months depending on the preferred route chosen, plus the return trip.
Tim peaked ran a marathon while in space on the excercise machine, can you out such equipment into a Mars landing craft?
For a trip that takes nearly two years to get there, get back and do some study, how much food, fuel, and resources do you need? According to NASA you'd need 60 shuttle launches worth...
This is something that needs to be considered.
That's the reason people spend so long on the ISS. People regularly spend up to a year in microgravity, so a manned mission to Mars is not going to be a killer (bearing in mind once on Mars there is greater than microgravity, but admittedly not as much as Earths (just over 1/3)). It will be damaging, but we understand how damaging based on time on the ISS, which are still going on.
The main reason we haven't been to Mars, or back to the Moon is - as you mentioned in the previous post - robots and unmanned missions. Yes, humans could do the experiments quicker, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper just to send multiple pieces of technology. The risk/cost/reward matrix just makes manned missions not worth it, unless landing someone one the planet/moon is the main aim, or because there is a specific need for humans to be there, something a machine cannot do.
Absolutely there was a need. Still is. Same reason that you climb a mountain, or cross an ocean. Because it's there
All very noble...kinda smooths over the fact it was vital to ICBM research so that they may rain nuclear fire down upon the cities of thier enemies
Jet fuel, steel melting temperature, etc.
Personally think rushing off to mars - as this thread has descended into talking about that - is a big mistake. Until we're capable of a proper space ship that can produce it's own artificial mavity for those onboard, I wouldn't say we're ready to start exploring further than our own moon and that's incorporating whatever else we produce in that time too.
at which part?
i think a long trip without the earth top act as a shield would require some fairly significant shielding.
if only for the reason we're really not very good at predicting solar flares/getting a months long flare free window.
the moon has the interesting feature of having water in the surface dust, not much but some.
ther was the proposal to have robots harvest it, a big stock of water on the moon = rocket fuel we don't have to launch into space.
Fascinating. I have some pretty serious anxiety issues that involve heights and open spaces, but ironically nothing fascinates me more then space. I hope in my lifetime I will be given the chance to witness human beings overcome the challenges that the 'mission to mars' presents. It will surely be the most significant achievement of a generation.
all of it, it really doesn't require significant shielding at all. and flares are a risk but a small risk, they don't radiate the entire solar system, they're directional.
a 210 day transfer in both directions would be about 700Millisievert, a nasa career astronaut is allowed 1000Millisievert for their space career. that's also before you take into account shielding of the space ship, which is significant.
on mars its pretty easy, a few meters of martian soil ontop of the habitat will block any radiation and the amount you would get from martian walks is in the 10s of Millisievert per year. not even hundreds.
you could also have a safe room on the space craft for flares if you deemed it a big enough risk.
What are your thoughts on Robert Zubrins ideas and around Mars Direct?
I did once buy the radiation theme that while it can be lethal can be compared to risks in smoking. Hope that's right.
good idea, but ultimately no funding for it and almost certainly wont happen. i also dont want to see boots and flag missions. if were going to go that far then it should be to colonise. Which is why imo we should establish a moon base and a Lunar > LEO economy first.
not a bad analogy, but smoking is probably still more of a risk. Space radiation does increase risk of cancer, but it's still lower than acceptable levels in nuclear industry.
not a bad analogy, but smoking is probably still more of a risk. Space radiation does increase risk of cancer, but it's still lower than acceptable levels in nuclear industry.
Nope that's mars one, and most of them are wierdos.
Marsdrestis an affordable plan using existing texhto send a team to mars and stay for 18months before returning
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
Exactly, we need reliable and cheaper payload lifting methods first such as a space elevator to work the LEO before we start looking further out in the solar system.
Errr did you not see the state of the astronaut returning from 1 year on the iss?
0g is very difficult to counter act.
You need somw form of artifical mavity which adds a lot of complexity to any ship design.
Im hoping skylon and reaction engines works well.
A scaled up version could be useful for cargo launches not just satelites
Well if you think about it there is no more claustrophobic environment than space.
You must always be enclosed, you are never worried about things getting in its all about things getting out of your little portable bunker thats the issue.
Apollo really wasn't. The Saturn rockets were never designed to be ICBMs. They were solely for lifting stuff into Earth orbit, and in the Vs case then lighting the third stage back up to head on out into lunar orbit. The Titan missiles used in Gemini and the Atlas used in Mercury were re-purposed ICBMs...that had been developed before manned spaceflight became a reality.