Scientists have been saying for some time that travel outside Earths atmosphere was full of hazards from radiation. It is one of the arguments used to say that Man did not get to the moon. It has always been one of the stumbling blocks for a manned flight to Mars and yet scientists have argued that we could still make it and plans have been drawn up.
Now, however, it seems that the radiation risk is too high for anything approaching a trip to Mars. The trip will take over a year compared to the two weeks for a trip to the moon. So, talks seem to be aimed at raising the level of radiation deemed acceptable and asking astronauts, the people who willingly sit on top of a big pile of explosives, if they are willing to accept a 1 in 5 chance of getting cancer rather than spending more on making sure the shielding is adequate.
Personally, I think that the risks are high enough as it is and the object should be to safely get there and back rather than a suicide mission. Nothing would be worse than seeing these guys die from cancer within a few years of returning. Of course, its up to them but I think if you told them that they would get to Mars and not get back they would all still volunteer. That is what these guys are like.
What exactly is the problem with shielding anyway? We know what we need to do to provide the shielding we need. We know that it will require extra fuel to push the extra mass, we know what the distances are and the timings for everything so can calculate the requirements exactly as we could do with less shielding. So what can the issue be? Cost and time are the only factors that can be changed. The shielding and its associated costs must make a significant difference to the total and/or the the trip time or development time must cause significant delays so that the current bunch of politicians won’t get any benefit from it. I’m leaning towards cost in the current economic climate. Going to Mars or funding a socialist utopia. Mmmmm. Let me think. What would our current politicians choose?
Of course if the astronauts do it with the current shielding then we can get it much cheaper and what are a few lives anyway from the mass of humanity. People, mass produced by unskilled labour.
Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad name. — Henry Kissinger
Current shielding is inadequate for Mars trip
Scientists have been saying for some time that travel outside Earths atmosphere was full of hazards from radiation. It is one of the arguments used to say that Man did not get to the moon. It has always been one of the stumbling blocks for a manned flight to Mars and yet scientists have argued that we could still make it and plans have been drawn up.
Now, however, it seems that the radiation risk is too high for anything approaching a trip to Mars. The trip will take over a year compared to the two weeks for a trip to the moon. So, talks seem to be aimed at raising the level of radiation deemed acceptable and asking astronauts, the people who willingly sit on top of a big pile of explosives, if they are willing to accept a 1 in 5 chance of getting cancer rather than spending more on making sure the shielding is adequate.
Personally, I think that the risks are high enough as it is and the object should be to safely get there and back rather than a suicide mission. Nothing would be worse than seeing these guys die from cancer within a few years of returning. Of course, its up to them but I think if you told them that they would get to Mars and not get back they would all still volunteer. That is what these guys are like.
What exactly is the problem with shielding anyway? We know what we need to do to provide the shielding we need. We know that it will require extra fuel to push the extra mass, we know what the distances are and the timings for everything so can calculate the requirements exactly as we could do with less shielding. So what can the issue be? Cost and time are the only factors that can be changed. The shielding and its associated costs must make a significant difference to the total and/or the the trip time or development time must cause significant delays so that the current bunch of politicians won’t get any benefit from it. I’m leaning towards cost in the current economic climate. Going to Mars or funding a socialist utopia. Mmmmm. Let me think. What would our current politicians choose?
Of course if the astronauts do it with the current shielding then we can get it much cheaper and what are a few lives anyway from the mass of humanity. People, mass produced by unskilled labour.