If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Radiation poses manned Mars mission dilemma; mainly if it would result in cancer, death, or super powers   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 31
    More: Obvious, radiation, manned mission to Mars, CT scans, science magazine, health officers, magnetic fields, space stations, excess risk  
•       •       •

869 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 May 2013 at 4:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-30 05:30:12 PM
Wow, really well understood physics from the 1960s is so exciting.
 
2013-05-30 10:12:07 PM
That's why you send old guys
 
2013-05-30 10:32:50 PM
Get your radiated ass to Mars!
 
2013-05-30 11:20:24 PM
Terraform some rain clouds.
 
2013-05-30 11:25:13 PM
joeypentax.blog.com
joeypentax.blog.com
 
2013-05-31 12:02:16 AM

gaslight: Wow, really well understood physics from the 1960s is so exciting.


hasnt this problem been solved in about 3 billion science fiction stories?
mass, mass and more mass
water works just fine as a moderator

/why yes, I am aware that greater mass = longer trip. yawn.
 
2013-05-31 02:07:45 AM
Whatever. Sign me up.
 
2013-05-31 04:41:07 AM
Not a single reason other than cock-waving to send people to Mars. Bots are far cheaper and more efficient for every damned thing.
 
2013-05-31 05:15:30 AM

robohobo: Not a single reason other than cock-waving to send people to Mars. Bots are far cheaper and more efficient for every damned thing.


Careful, that's treason around here. You may yet redeem yourself. Repeat after me:

In the name of the Species, the Musk and the Holy Vacuum...
 
2013-05-31 05:15:59 AM

robohobo: Not a single reason other than cock-waving to send people to Mars. Bots are far cheaper and more efficient for every damned thing.



you sound fun! fark trying something hard, lets only send robots!
 
2013-05-31 05:24:48 AM
We do not choose to go to Mars and the other things because it is easy, we do it because it's insanely dangerous and suicidally EXXXXXREEEEEEME!!!!!
 
2013-05-31 05:29:21 AM

gaslight: Wow, really well understood physics from the 1960s is so exciting.


This. Why is something that has been known for decades suddenly getting international media attention?

/DNRTFA
 
2013-05-31 05:32:48 AM
Also, from what I understand, it's believed one could likely get to Mars without dying from the radiation, but would never survive a return to Earth. That said, it doesn't matter that much because launching a ship to Mars with the intention of it returning to Earth is lunacy due to all of the design complexities that would be added (#1 being fuel).
 
2013-05-31 05:40:20 AM

bobtheallmighty: robohobo: Not a single reason other than cock-waving to send people to Mars. Bots are far cheaper and more efficient for every damned thing.


you sound fun! fark trying something hard, lets only send robots!


Life extension is hard. You wanna try that? Making living arrangements for 7 billion people right here is hard, why do you want to fly away?

Sending robots to Venus is hard, try that.
 
2013-05-31 06:40:46 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: bobtheallmighty: robohobo: Not a single reason other than cock-waving to send people to Mars. Bots are far cheaper and more efficient for every damned thing.


you sound fun! fark trying something hard, lets only send robots!

Life extension is hard. You wanna try that? Making living arrangements for 7 billion people right here is hard, why do you want to fly away?

Sending robots to Venus is hard, try that.


see now you sound like a robot, whats the point of exploration if no one is really exploring? not to mention the fact that figuring out how to keep someone alvie for 7 months in space might transilate to tech we could use on earth.

fark no wonder people dont care about space anymore, its just robots.
 
2013-05-31 06:45:01 AM
Who would want to come back? 30,000 people already voted "with their feet" for Mars One. Build the damn rockets, Mr. Musk and let's get off this rock. Radiation shmadiation, I got enough UVA and solar particles living in the flight levels in Mexico City.
 
2013-05-31 07:40:06 AM
I understand the enthusiasm for sending people to Mars. But it's not happening any time soon. Too costly and too complex, especially since the odds are quite high that you'll deliver corpses to Mars. Then all of the enthusiasm turns to anger.

Meanwhile the ability of robots grows by leaps and bounds.
 
2013-05-31 08:12:24 AM
sigh... space bevets is up early to derail another thread. oh no space is dangerous .. we should never try anything new ever again.
 
2013-05-31 08:58:43 AM

digistil: Also, from what I understand, it's believed one could likely get to Mars without dying from the radiation, but would never survive a return to Earth. That said, it doesn't matter that much because launching a ship to Mars with the intention of it returning to Earth is lunacy due to all of the design complexities that would be added (#1 being fuel).


ahem
 
2013-05-31 09:20:25 AM
Simple solution.  Only send surgeons capable of operating on themselves.
 
2013-05-31 09:29:01 AM
I'm definitely on the robots first, then humans team.
 
2013-05-31 09:45:24 AM

bobtheallmighty: see now you sound like a robot, whats the point of exploration if no one is really exploring? not to mention the fact that figuring out how to keep someone alvie for 7 months in space might transilate to tech we could use on earth.

fark no wonder people dont care about space anymore, its just robots.


Don't stress about him. He's a sexist science-illiterate moron who is pitifully infamous for going into EVERY story even remotely related to space and spews his drivel. He doesn't care about reason, he's just pants-pissingly terrified of dying and throws tantrums when other people have different ideas from him. He's the old man literally yelling at stars, without actually being old yet.

The general populace is much more supportive of manned space exploration than the guy in the straitjacket. It's politicians who don't support manned space exploration.
 
2013-05-31 09:45:32 AM
That article has some of the worst all-time comments I've ever seen on the internet.


The sun is made of fire yes, but what is the fire burning? Again, there must be solid matter inside it for it to burn so long. Otherwise it would just go out.

how do you know we cant land on Jupiter? No one has ever been there so we don't know what it is made of.

We shud go to mars and the moon soon. There is a big cloud of gas going though the solar system and it will block are view of the planets soon. We wont know where to point are rockets.

If mars is such a problem with radiation with todays technology, how did they get to the moon in a tin can and not get fried?!?!


and of course:  If we went to Mars, you would probably find illegal immigrants have been there already for years.
 
2013-05-31 09:50:18 AM
Clearly the solution lies with 3-D printing, duh!

Seriously, do I have to think of everything around here!?
 
2013-05-31 09:59:57 AM
So why didn't we have radiation issues on the moon?
 
2013-05-31 10:05:13 AM

You Are All Sheep: So why didn't we have radiation issues on the moon?


earths magnetic field extends past the moons orbit.
 
2013-05-31 10:24:03 AM

khitsicker: You Are All Sheep: So why didn't we have radiation issues on the moon?

earths magnetic field extends past the moons orbit.


If that were true we'd have a big problem. The magnetosphere is 65,000-90,000 kilometers up, and the moon is 384,400km.

They're still downplaying how large a factor radiation would be. There's no way to predict whether or not an errant blast of cosmic or solar radiation would instantly kill everyone, and the van allen radiation belt is also much stronger than many people want to admit.
 
2013-05-31 11:19:27 AM
Too bad we didn't just go for it in the 70s/80s, back when men were men and the threat of space radiation was dwarfed by the threat of Soviet radiation.  And maybe also the radiation from the nuclear engines.
 
2013-05-31 11:19:33 AM

You Are All Sheep: So why didn't we have radiation issues on the moon?


Because it only took 7 days to get there, land, do their stuff, and come back.  The longer you spend out there, the higher your cumulative exposure.  Also the greater the odds that there will suddenly be an intense spike of radiation that alone might be enough to kill you.

The Apollo missions were enormous gambles.  We were really fortunate that none of the astronauts died.  That's not always recognized.
 
2013-05-31 11:24:50 AM

Kibbler: You Are All Sheep: So why didn't we have radiation issues on the moon?

Because it only took 7 days to get there, land, do their stuff, and come back.  The longer you spend out there, the higher your cumulative exposure.  Also the greater the odds that there will suddenly be an intense spike of radiation that alone might be enough to kill you.

The Apollo missions were enormous gambles.  We were really fortunate that none of the astronauts died.  That's not always recognized.


Well, none in space.  Before Apollo 1 those spacecraft were more or less death traps with incredibly shoddy construction.
 
2013-05-31 12:51:39 PM
Martian Super Powers?  Sign me up.

comicwiki.dk
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report