I vote "Not"!!
See, I've already solved the problem.
Posted on 12/09/2003 8:25:37 AM PST by presidio9
As the United States considers new goals for NASA after the loss of the Columbia, some space enthusiasts have renewed calls for a mission to Mars.
But a team of physicists and biologists here at a laboratory on Long Island is demonstrating that even if the nation wanted to commit to such a goal, it would be far more complex than the Moon mission that gripped the country in the 60's.
One reason is radiation, in the form of heavy ions from distant stars, zipping through everything in their path. Others include price, estimated at $30 billion to $60 billion, and launching enough food, supplies and fuel for a round trip. Any one of these could make the project impractical.
In a new $34 million NASA laboratory here, part of Brookhaven National Laboratory, scientists are using subatomic particles accelerated to nearly the speed of light to slam into materials that could be used in a spaceship, and tissue samples and small animals. Using tools like PET and M.R.I. scans and DNA sequencing, they hope to shed light on ways that radiation damages biological tissue, and what can be done about it.
On a trip to Mars and back, probably every cell in the body would be hit by an ionized particle or a proton, researchers say, and they have very little idea what that would do. "If every neuron in your brain gets hit, do you come back being a blithering idiot, or not?" asked Dr. Derek I. Lowenstein, the chairman of Brookhaven's collider accelerator department.
A trip to Mars means "trying to live in an environment that human beings were not built to live in," Dr. Lowenstein said. "Space is not `Star Trek,' but the public certainly doesn't understand that."
On earth, radiation shielding is easy; just add concrete or lead. That is not so easy on a spaceship, where weight is of the essence. Nor is there much prospect of significantly reducing the amount of time the astronauts would be exposed, unless NASA develops a much more effective propulsion system.
The NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, has identified radiation as one of three problems that will have to be solved before a Mars mission. The others are better propulsion and on-board power generation.
Brookhaven is studying the radiation in a a sprinkling of undistinguished-looking corrugated metal buildings, connected by low earthen berms. "That's where the action is," said Mona Rowe, a spokeswoman. The berms are shields for tracks underneath that carry the accelerated particles that slammed into targets or one another. Above the berms, wild turkeys amble through the woods.
The radiation environment that the accelerator is mimicking is vastly different from the terrestrial one.
The average American receives about 350 millirem of radiation a year: the fraction of solar and cosmic radiation that makes it through Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere; radiation from naturally radioactive rocks and minerals, some incorporated into building materials; higher doses from flying in airplanes; and sources like medical X-rays.
In contrast, the astronauts who went to the Moon on Apollo 14 accumulated about 1,140 millirem, equivalent of about three years on Earth in their nine-day mission. The astronauts on the Skylab 4, who spent 87 days in low Earth orbit, received a dose of about 17,800 millirem (equivalent to a 50-year background dose on Earth).
That dose was near the threshold of radiation exposure that produces clinically measurable symptoms. Longer-term effects like increases in cancer rates have not been observed in adults exposed to doses at that level, but experts presume the effects exist. By comparison, nuclear power plant workers are limited by law to exposures no greater than 5,000 millirem a year; in this country they are generally held below 2,000.
A round trip to Mars would be of a different order of magnitude. Brookhaven puts the exposure at 130,000 millirem over two and a half years. That is equivalent to almost 400 years of natural exposure.
But radiation in space is not like radiation on Earth.
FYI total legal allowable dose for a radiation worker in the US is 5000 mr/year. This does not take into account the Q factor, which is a biological multiplier. X-rays have a Q factor of 1 where as neutrons (somewhat similar in damage effect to the particles discussed in the article) can go up to 20.
I vote "Not"!!
See, I've already solved the problem.
Off the top of my head, I wonder about magnetic fields to deflect the incoming particles...? Using superconducting coils?
And yeah; something like VASIMR or nuclear propulsion is key to reducing trip times...
--Boris
Let's get on with the funding and planning. It is our species' imperative to move out into space as we did when we crawled out onto the land aeons ago!
Spock's waiting so lets get on with it.
Reminds me of the argument that ships made of iron cannot float
Total agreement...
Furthermore, Quantum juxtaposition is adherent to max-flux propulsion in a zero functional environment... Not only does it fluctuate from inversions, it aggrandizes based on static or inert regressions...
...
...
I'm a frickin' genius... ;)
Man could survive a mission to Mars according to NASA scientists, who say experiments on board the Mars Odyssey craft prove that humans could endure the planet's harsh conditions.
The results show that radiation around Mars might cause some health problems, but scientists told the BBC that humans could survive the conditions.
scientists are using subatomic particles accelerated to nearly the speed of light to slam into materials that could be used in a spaceship, and tissue samples and small animals.And PETA is outraged no doubt.
Like this hasn't been a concern for quite awhile? NYT is about 30 years too late for this band wagon. One possible solution is to surround the crew with their water supply, or at least part of their shelter. Heavy, but deffinately doable.
Others include price, estimated at $30 billion to $60 billion, and launching enough food, supplies and fuel for a round trip
Once again, whoever wrote this has had no connection with the space program for the last 30 years. Fuel, water, and possibly some food (Grown in the base on the planet)for the return trip will produced on the planet. Most before human's arrive.
The fact that this article ignores proposed solutions to these problems, and the fact that it is the NYT, I'm guessing that this peace is a preemptive strike on what they fear will be a history making speech by GW next week. One that will eclipse that over rated tripe JFK spewed 30 years ago. "We will go to the moon and do the other things (Other Things? WTF? Marilyn Monroe?)..."
This looks like something I would write.Did I miss something in the article about two kinds of radiation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.