Houston, we have another problem: Study shows space travel is harmful to the brain

Dec 31, 2012
Credit: NASA

(Phys.org)—As if space travel was not already filled with enough dangers, a new study out today in the journal PLOS ONE shows that cosmic radiation – which would bombard astronauts on deep space missions to places like Mars – could accelerate the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

"Galactic cosmic radiation poses a significant threat to future astronauts," said M. Kerry O'Banion, M.D., Ph.D., a professor in the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy and the senior author of the study. "The possibility that in space may give rise to health problems such as cancer has long been recognized. However, this study shows for the first time that exposure to equivalent to a mission to Mars could produce and speed up changes in the brain that are associated with Alzheimer's disease."

While space is full of radiation, the earth's magnetic field generally protects the planet and people in from these particles. However, once astronauts leave orbit, they are exposed to constant shower of various radioactive particles. With appropriate warning, astronauts can be shielded from dangerous radiation associated with solar flares. But there are also other forms of cosmic radiation that, for all intents and purposes, cannot be effectively blocked.

Because this radiation exists in low levels, the longer an astronaut is in deep space, the greater the exposure. This is a concern for NASA as the agency is planning to a distant asteroid in 2021 and to Mars in 2035. The round trip to the red planet, in particular, could take as long as three years.

For over 25 years, NASA has been funding research to determine the of in an effort to both develop countermeasures and determine whether or not the risks warranted sending men and women on extended missions in deep space.

Since that time, several studies have demonstrated the potential cancer, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal impact of galactic . The study out today for the first time examines the potential impact of space radiation on neurodegeneration, in particular, the biological processes in the brain that contribute to the development of Alzheimer's disease. O'Banion – whose research focuses on how radiation affects the central nervous system – and his team have been working with NASA for over eight years.

The researchers studied the impact of a particular form of radiation called high-mass, high-charged (HZE) particles. These particles – which are propelled through space at very high speeds by the force of exploding stars – come in many different forms. For this study the researcher chose iron particles. Unlikely hydrogen protons, which are produced by , the mass of HZE particles like iron, combined with their speed, enable them to penetrate solid objects such as the wall and protective shielding of a spacecraft.

"Because iron particles pack a bigger wallop it is extremely difficult from an engineering perspective to effectively shield against them," said O'Banion. "One would have to essentially wrap a spacecraft in a six-foot block of lead or concrete."

A portion of the research was conducted at the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. NASA located its research operation at Brookhaven to take advantage of the Lab's particle accelerators which – by colliding matter together at very high speeds – can reproduce the found in space.

The researchers specifically wanted to examine whether or not radiation exposure had the potential to accelerate the biological and cognitive indicators of Alzheimer's disease, particularly in individuals who may be predisposed to developing the disease. To accomplish this they chose study the impact on animal models of Alzheimer's disease. These particular models have been extensively studied and scientists understand the precise timeframe in which the disease progresses over time.

At Brookhaven, the animals were exposed to various doses of radiation, including levels comparable to what astronauts would be experience during a mission to Mars. Back in Rochester, a team of researchers – including URMC graduate student Jonathan Cherry, who was first author on the paper – evaluated the cognitive and biological impact of the exposure. The mice underwent a series of experiments during which they had to recall objects or specific locations. The researchers observed that mice exposed to radiation were far more likely to fail these tasks – suggesting neurological impairment – earlier than these symptoms would typically appear.

The brains of the mice also showed signs of vascular alterations and a greater than normal accumulation of beta amyloid, the protein "plaque" that accumulates in the brain and is one of the hallmarks of the disease.

"These findings clearly suggest that exposure to in has the potential to accelerate the development of Alzheimer's disease," said O'Banion. "This is yet another factor that NASA, which is clearly concerned about the health risks to its astronauts, will need to take into account as it plans future missions."

Explore further: Planetary Society hopes tiny satellite sets sail above Earth

Related Stories

Can solar flares hurt astronauts?

Jan 24, 2012

Solar flares, coronal mass ejections, high-energy photons, cosmic rays… space is full of various forms of radiation that a human wouldn’t want to be exposed to for very long. Energized particles ...

Deep-space travel could create heart woes for astronauts

Apr 07, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronauts anticipate more trips to the moon and manned missions to Mars. But exposure to cosmic radiation outside the Earth’s magnetic field could be detrimental to their arteries, according to a study ...

Study investigates proton radiation effects on cells

Aug 05, 2012

(Phys.org) -- A team of researchers at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., has found radiation from protons could further enhance a process that occurs during ...

Recommended for you

Lifetime of gravity measurements heralds new beginning

1 hour ago

Although ESA's GOCE satellite is no more, all of the measurements it gathered during its life skirting the fringes our atmosphere, including the very last as it drifted slowly back to Earth, have been drawn ...

NASA's IceCube no longer on ice

5 hours ago

NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) has chosen a team at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, to build its first Earth science-related CubeSat mission.

Tidal forces gave moon its shape, according to new analysis

19 hours ago

The shape of the moon deviates from a simple sphere in ways that scientists have struggled to explain. A new study by researchers at UC Santa Cruz shows that most of the moon's overall shape can be explained by taking into ...

User comments : 119

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

grondilu
4.2 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2012
No worries. I wear a tinfoil hat already.
bliskater
3 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
Yeah, well...
Rats? predisposed? What level of radiation...as in some protection vs none? Higher than a protected lab rat, or higher than a rat living in New York. what about rats that don't normally get Alzheimer? What duration does the change start becoming significant?
Never as much fact as drama.
Sanescience
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
Man in space will not be the first competitive use of extraterrestrial resources. A lunar base using virtual presence end points (robots and equipment) for workers here on Earth will be the most competitive off planet "colonization". Military cross development for virtual presence end point combat systems would also help support the funding burdens. Once a base becomes a net producer of resources it can build human habitats underground for permanent habitation.
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2012
Man in space will not be the first competitive use of extraterrestrial resources. A lunar base using virtual presence end points (robots and equipment) for workers here on Earth will be the most competitive off planet "colonization". Military cross development for virtual presence end point combat systems would also help support the funding burdens. Once a base becomes a net producer of resources it can build human habitats underground for permanent habitation.

This will likely be the only mechanism for permanent colonies, but this article is only talking about the length of a round trip. To the moon its not bad, but to Mars the times are constrained by available delta-V and the physics of orbital mechanics.
Screeching Demon
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2012
I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible to use a spacecraft which either has its own strong magnetic field, or use a diamagnetic shielding with graphene layering underneath.
Infinion
3.3 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
@Screeching Demon
That's what I was thinking too, any charged particle would either lose a significant amount of its momentum in a head-to-head collision with the spacecraft, or will have its trajectory modified to be deflected entirely from contact with the spacecraft. The entire spacecraft also wouldn't need to be enveloped in an external magnetic field, you could simply have sections of the spacecraft protected where astronauts spend most of their time.

Besides using permanent magnets to generate a constant magnetic field, the spacecraft could also strengthen its field by forcing high currents to flow through a conductive body, generating a magnetic field perpendicular to current flow. This would only really be useful when a solar flare is expected since producing a magnetic field this way would be far too power hungry and would generate too much unwanted heat in the conductor and its environment to be used consistently.

VendicarD
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2012
Perhaps if you provide us with your power consumption estimates, we can diagnose your lack of difficulty in comprehending why using strong magnetic fields is a problem.

"I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible to use a spacecraft which either has its own strong magnetic field" - Screeching
Arcbird
1.2 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2012
Pointless discussion. Ridiculous article. won't have any meaning anyway once they release electro gravitic propulsion.
dogbert
3.6 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2012
A combination of magnetic shielding and storing water in a double wall should ameliorate most of the radiation danger. The water is needed anyway and can be recycled.
daqman
3.4 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2012
Space is cold so use that cold with a refrigeration unit to cool a superconducting solenoid built into the skin of the craft. The solenoid would mimic the Earth's magnetic field. That takes care of 99.9% of the charged particles. High energy gamma rays can be shielded by a thin but dense shield that converts the energy of the gamma ray into a charged particle shower that is deflected by the magnetic shield. Problem solved.
daqman
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2012
A combination of magnetic shielding and storing water in a double wall should ameliorate most of the radiation danger. The water is needed anyway and can be recycled.


@dogbert You posted the same thing i did while I was busy typing.
dogbert
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2012
dagman,
These are not even new ideas. As to the extended time at low or zero gravity, spin the ship or have a spinning living area.

I've never understood why the space station has no spin.

Science fiction has been solving these problems for years.
DarkWingDuck
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2012
And that's why we have evolution. Let's have babies in space.
Bob_Kob
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2012
I've never understood why the space station has no spin.


Its not big enough? I always though that to get spin artificial gravity, you'd need something a lot larger otherwise they would experience sickness.
VendicarD
2.4 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2012
Because it was too expensive to build one that spins.

"I've never understood why the space station has no spin." - Dogbert

The U.S. couldn't even afford to build the ISS on it's own, so they had to bring in other countries and put the I before the SS.

Capisce?
VendicarD
1.7 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
High energy gamma rays can be shielded by a thin but dense "shield..." - Dagman

How small do you intend to make the living area? The size of a coffin? Car? Bus? Aircraft carrier?

The design you describe will work. But it will double the mass of the spacecraft.

On the other hand, a robotic craft, needs shielding only for it's brain, and potentially for it's cargo.

dogbert
3 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2012
Bob Kob,
Its not big enough? I always though that to get spin artificial gravity, you'd need something a lot larger otherwise they would experience sickness.


Yes, the space station is not large enough. That is, it does not have sufficient radius for artificial gravity. That does not explain why we did not design a station with a sufficient radius.
eachus
2.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2012
Note also that there is a definite genetic component to Alzheimer's. Either someone will finally get around to making a genetic fix for people who make the wrong type of beta amyloid, or more likely something that reacts with the "wrong" beta amyloid, and makes it harmless go away.

In either case, by the time we get around to trips to Mars, Alzheimer's, as such, should not be a problem. Of course, if the cognitive impairment is unrelated to Alzheimer's that could be a major problem.

As to magnetic shielding, the trick is to design a shield that will reduce the net influx from all directions. If you do the math, any field will concentrate radiation from at least part of the sky. (If you can double the radiation from 10% of the sky, and cut the rest by 80%, great. But to get 90% or greater reduction will probably require nested shields, where the outer shield has "nulls" that the inner shield expands to cover most of the spacecraft.)
eachus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
Spinning the current space station would be counterproductive. Much of the work that goes on there requires microgravity. Designing a space station with a non-rotating lab area and a rotating living area is not too hard. The living area can be a double hammerhead, not a full ring. The (not rotating) lab area can be in the center inside a common envelope, so that there are no rotating atmosphere joints to leak. The only tricky part is a way to "unspin" the astronauts working with the lab. (Any working method will provide a way to spin the astronauts back up. Weights moving up and down the shafts, or some such, would be needed to manage the angular momentum. ;-)

The best solution, which looks more and more feasible is to build a space elevator. There you would want a microgravity lab at the geosync orbit level, as well as a real full ring, perhaps around the elevator cable, to service all the traffic at that level. (Spaceships pulling in satellites for repair, etc.)
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2013
This is just a theory, despite it sounds logical and substantiated. But in science the experiment and observation is what counts, not theories. We already had a hundreds of people in the space. How many astronauts did develop the Alzheimer?
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2013
ValeriaT: None, who were outside the Earth's magnetic field long enough to be affected. So far, our longest trips outside low Earth orbit were to the Moon, and those were only a couple weeks. Since exposure is cumulative, a trip to Mars would involve much greater exposure.
holoman
1.2 / 5 (17) Jan 01, 2013
The faster you travel between Earth and Mars, i.e., near light
speed propulsion, would reduce cosmic radiation on the astronauts
to 0.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2013
ValeriaT: None, who were outside the Earth's magnetic field long enough to be affected.
OK, so it's just a theory, waiting for its confirmation by now. No less, no more. BTW the effects similar to cosmic ray visual phenomena can be observed with pilots or around nuclear reactors. We can test this theory already, because we have long-term experience with high altitude flights and nuclear reactors already.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2013
This is just a theory, despite it sounds logical and substantiated. But in science the experiment and observation is what counts, not theories.


Oh for christ's sake... I've been reading your comments for some three years now and you will never fucking learn will you? You don't know what science is, what the scientific method is, or the ideology/philosophy behind it.
dan42day
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2013
Thank god they didn't test the effects of falling off the edge of the earth on rats back when Columbus was getting started!
Yes, I'm aware that they didn't really think the earth was flat in Columbus' time.

It's just that I am afraid that the people that mandated seatbelts, airbags, car seats, and bicycle helmets, will nix interplanetary space travel as being too dangerous.

IF they are just looking for ways to make it safer, without adding billions of dollars to the mission cost fine. But the doom and gloom tone of this article worries me.

There was a scene in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where the guys are about to jump off the cliff into a river far below. Sundance is worried because he can't swim and Butch says, "Are you crazy? The fall will probably kill you!".

So if the scientists are worried about future cancer and Alzheimer's, hell the mission will probably kill you.

As long as there are people willing to take the risks to explore, let them explore
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2013
You don't know what science is, what the scientific method is, or the ideology/philosophy behind it

This is typical arrogant yelling of religious people, who have no arguments. I'm using to ignore it with pleasure, because the science is just about rational argumentation. Such a post just illustrates, you even cannot use the scientific method, because you never learned it - so you shouldn't mentor the other people here about it. Without arguments you're just a dull spambot for me, not worth of attention.
Msafwan
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2013
A combination of magnetic shielding and storing water in a double wall should ameliorate most of the radiation danger. The water is needed anyway and can be recycled.

Dogbert, the water will not be 100% recycleable. If all the water turn into Deuterium, its not safe to drink anymore. A test with mice shows that they died after drinking pure Deutrium water.
A_Paradox
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2013
My take on the humanisation of space is that the competitive piecemeal approach currently in vogue isn't the best.

I advocate making a big long vacuum tube at the equator, tilted at 45 degrees or so, and using electromagnetic induction to launch prefabricated steel parts at sufficient velocity to get beyond geo -stationary orbital hight.

Make the parts like jigsaw puzzle pieces and remotely controlled robots can gather them together and build a space facility big enough to provide centrifugal inertia similar to Earth gravity. Steel and water ice shielding magnetic fields would then provide protection from most cosmic rays.

Similar large scale underground mining and city construction within the moon will see that habitable well before the end of 21 century. The space elevator will need constant electro magnetism to provide the tensile strength of a lifting facility with the capacity required. How else could all the necessary parts and equipment be got into orbit?
A_Paradox
not rated yet Jan 01, 2013
oops, that should be " water ice _and_ magnetic fields
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2013


Yes, the space station is not large enough. That is, it does not have sufficient radius for artificial gravity. That does not explain why we did not design a station with a sufficient radius.


It is actually large enough from end to end, 100 meters should be sufficient. It wasnt designed for spinning because there was no reason to, it is a microgravity laboratory, and it would be costly.
Kedas
5 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2013
Astronaut: Houston we have a problem!!
Houston: What kind of problem?
Astronaut: ...There is a problem?
BSD
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
No worries. I wear a tinfoil hat already.


Guffaw..... 8D

That's why we have robots to do the work for us.
A_Paradox
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2013

Dogbert, the water will not be 100% recycleable. If all the water turn into Deuterium, its not safe to drink anymore. A test with mice shows that they died after drinking pure Deutrium water.


Msafwan, you could be onto a winner there ... if it works on rats and cockroaches as well ... :-)
Trenchant
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2013
I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible to use a spacecraft which either has its own strong magnetic field, or use a diamagnetic shielding with graphene layering underneath.


That would take a tremendous amount of energy. Not practical, yet.
Jo01
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
Wow. Needless torturing of animals.
The earth magnetic field can be simulated effectively for a space ship.
Combining it with the Vasimr drive seem logical.

J.
dogbert
3 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2013
ShotmanMaslo,
It is actually large enough from end to end, 100 meters should be sufficient. It wasnt designed for spinning because there was no reason to, it is a microgravity laboratory, and it would be costly.


There is apparently some problems associated with high speed/small radius approaches. Dizziness, etc. Also, at small radii, there is a difference in effective gravity over the height of a person. Stand up and your head gets lighter.

Slow rotations over a 700 to 800 foot radius is the minimum radius which is believed to be practical.

Of course, it is not necessary to build a huge structure. A central zero gee area with two counterbalanced endpoints with at least one of them for living area connected by a cable would suffice. There are lots of low cost options.

ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2013
I dont think true space colonisation (permanently manned space stations outside the Earth magnetic field) would work until we develop cheap access to space (elevators or reusable rockets) that would allow us to lift a lot of shielding mass (materials with hydrogen, lithium, beryllium, carbon and boron work best for cosmic rays, no lead or heavy elements) and/or energy sources to power a magnetic shield (space reactors?).
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013
I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible to use a spacecraft which either has its own strong magnetic field, or use a diamagnetic shielding with graphene layering underneath.

Please look up what 'diamagnetic' means before using the word. Thank you.

I dont think true space colonisation (permanently manned space stations outside the Earth magnetic field) would work

The simplest way, I think, for the shielding problem would be to go to a small asteroid (100-200 meters in diameter) in the asteroid belt and robotically dig down.

Once it's hollowed out and its mass greatly reduced you could spin it up using solar sails. No need to carry huge amounts of material up the gravity well.
Then you could transfer drives to it and move it closer to Earth before getting crew and supplies up there.
Steven_Anderson
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2013
antialias_physorg . You just took the words right out of my mouth. Capturing an astroid is one of the things NASA wants to do but there is no funding for. We could easily use an astroid or chunk of space ICE as a spaceship. No need to launch it all in space. We could build a huge space station. Not sure if its possible to put it in a permanent orbit between Earth and Mars but if we could then it would become a reusable transport between earth and mars. For colonization of Mars. Spin it as you say would take care of gravity. Build it with 30 foot walls all hollowed out. It could become a great international project (to spread out the cost.) We could build it with a nuclear propulsion system. Putting the propulsion system on the outside or in an inner core (which would be the shielding for it. The science advancement from such a project would be huge. Not to mention it would give us a method of transporting a lot of people and supplies back and forth.
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2013
Holoman: Near-light-speed travel would solve the exposure time problem, but wouldn't work well, especially in the Solar System. Interplanetary space is "dirty", with lots of dust, gas, and other debris. The ship would be hitting that, which would cause more radiation than would be received on the longer slower journey, and would likely suffer enough damage that it would be unusable. Even for interstellar travel, in "cleaner" space, massive impact shielding would be required, with a block of ice the size of a small asteroid being one of the leading contenders.
Steven_Anderson
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2013
We could choose an asteroid that is made out of precious metals and diamonds so that we could hollow it out while in earth orbit and turn it into a flyable set of wings and fly it down to the earth and recycle its precious metals as a way of paying for the mission. Choose an asteroid with precious metals that allow us to advance in technology fields and that rid us dependency on China for the metals and rare earths
Steven_Anderson
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2013
For some reason my comment disappeared. As I was saying grab an asteroid made out of precious metals. Preferably ones that have rare earths needed in the high tech field which we are running out of as well as strong materials. Hollow it out in earth orbit and turn it into a simple pair of wings for shuttling it back to orbit for recycling its precious metals as a way of paying for the mission.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Jan 01, 2013
Yeah, well...
Rats? predisposed? What level of radiation...as in some protection vs none? Higher than a protected lab rat, or higher than a rat living in New York. what about rats that don't normally get Alzheimer? What duration does the change start becoming significant?
Never as much fact as drama.
You know - as scientists I bet they would have thought of these things dont you? After all Im sure they spent a little more time on the subject than you did just reading the article and typing your post eh? What do you think -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 01, 2013
Yes, the space station is not large enough. That is, it does not have sufficient radius for artificial gravity. That does not explain why we did not design a station with a sufficient radius...Of course, it is not necessary to build a huge structure.
The station was intended to enable research, long-term habitation, construction, and maintenance in microgravity. Space tethering is an unexplored and undeveloped technology.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2013
but there is no funding for

And rightfully so, because we really don't have the technology to do it yet.

We neither have the ability to
- move significant amounts of hardware to an asteroids in the asteroid belt
- construct a robot that would do any intense physical labor in space for a significant amount of time
- attack solar sails to an asteroid to impart significant force
- have drives that could move such an hollowed out asteroid in an appreciable amount of time.

The whole thing is still a century or so (at least) beyond us.
I was just saying that this would be the easiest way - not that it would be a currently feasible one.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013

Dogbert, the water will not be 100% recycleable. If all the water turn into Deuterium, its not safe to drink anymore. A test with mice shows that they died after drinking pure Deutrium water.


Msafwan, you could be onto a winner there ... if it works on rats and cockroaches as well ... :-)
-A. Paradox

The optimum type of space vehicle for interplanetary and intragalactic travel would be a sphere...a globe with an outer hull that spins. The spin effect could help to diminish or even prevent the impacts of particles striking the hull, as the particles would be flung away rather than making a direct hit into the hull. It would depend on the velocity of the spin itself as to how effective the skipping of the particles away from the hull would be. The higher the spin velocity, the less chance of direct impacts of particles.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2013
As was suggested by Dogbert, storing water within a double wall would catch any stray particles. The water would have to be next to the outer hull for the water to absorb such particles. But the fast spinning of the outer hull should keep particles entering at a minimum. Consider the Earth's spin and how meteorites and other space material do not plummet down in a vertical maneuver, but instead fly in a more or less horizontal trajectory and most often burn up.

If the Earth's velocity of spin were much greater than it is, space materials such as asteroids, meteorites, etc. would probably be flung away back into space by the centrifugal force of the spin. Of course, other things might also become airborne, so we are lucky that Earth's spin is not too fast.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2013
The optimum type of space vehicle for interplanetary and intragalactic travel would be a sphere


Since the amount of shielding in the direction of travel is more than in all other directions the optimal configuration for anything beyond the solar system would be a (very long) cylinder

1) You want as much mass in front of your habitable areas as possible, since fast travel will cause enormous blueshift of radiation in that direction.

2) You want as small a cross setion in the direction of travel as possible to minimize the number of hits from atoms (which create radiation on impact) to microdebris (which can have all the force of an atomic bomb depending on the relative speed you're going at)

A sphere would just bloat the amount of shielding you'd need.

For interplanetary travel (within our solar system) the configuration of the ship is pretty arbitrary. For those timespans you can survive in zero g without major problems.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 01, 2013
The whole thing is still a century or so (at least) beyond us.
50 years tops. Technology is advancing parabolically.
http://www.parabo...ologies/
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2013
A fast spinning outer hull on a spherical spacecraft would be based on the same principle as the Earth's spin. When the sphere reaches low-Mars-orbit, the rate of spin can be slowed but not completely stopped. The centrifugal force will have to be maintained so that the water will remain "trapped"against the outer wall. The only time that the spin can be stopped safely, is if all the water is removed.
There may be found a use for any radioactive particles that are in the water in the future.

I consider the globe shape to be optimum because it ;seems to be the most natural in the universe…planets, stars, etc. A "flying saucer" shape would also be optimum for space flight, as it may be the best for speed in traveling to another planet quickly.
I have no drawings, no schematics for this...just an idea.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (25) Jan 01, 2013
The optimum type of space vehicle for interplanetary and intragalactic travel would be a sphere...a globe with an outer hull that spins. The spin effect could help to diminish or even prevent the impacts of particles striking the hull, as the particles would be flung away rather than making a direct hit into the hull. It would depend on the velocity of the spin itself as to how effective the skipping of the particles away from the hull would be. The higher the spin velocity, the less chance of direct impacts of particles.
I think that they were talking about radiation which is unflingable pussytard. As to dust and confetti and boogers and stuff like that, the relative velocities involved would make your flinging action ineffective, especially at the poles of your globeship which would not be rotating or flinging at all. Not to mention the part of the globeship which would be rotating into the direction of your booger swarm. Please consult an engineer.

You drunk again?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (26) Jan 01, 2013
the water will remain "trapped"against the outer wall. The only time that the spin can be stopped safely, is if all the water is removed.
So pussytard the engineer, what happens to the water at the poles inside a spinning globe? It tends to travel toward the equator does it not, thereby lessening its shielding effect? And also getting peoples socks all soggy?
"flying saucer" shape would also be optimum for space flight, as it may be the best for speed in traveling to another planet quickly.
-because as any NASA engineer (contract) like yourself would tell you, aerodynamics is critical for high-speed travel in the vacuum of space.
I have no drawings, no schematics for this
-and no training nor no brain with which to realize how ignorant it is.

What else you got you moron?
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
@AA
Your long cylinder nose would take the brunt of the particle impacts in high speed travel. That part at the very least would need reshaping at some point, and possibly a complete removal and overhaul.
But it would still not protect the people inside without a cushion of water or some other liquid to absorb any radiation coming through the outer hull.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2013
Is that all you've got, Blotto? Nothing of value to offer...just ad hominem attacks and name calling. That is what you are...your idiocy consists of the unimportant and the prurient (dysphemism pussytard and obvious need for attention from men).
Don't you have to change into your FrankHerbert sock puppet about now?
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2013
Your long cylinder nose would take the brunt of the particle impacts in high speed travel. That part at the very least would need reshaping at some point, and possibly a complete removal and overhaul.

No it would not take 'the brunt' of the particle because any other area you add would take EXACTLY the same amount of hits (and will need EXACTLY the same amount of maintenance). So you want the cross section as small as possible so that your maintenance needs are as small as possible.

But it would still not protect the people inside without a cushion of water or some other liquid to absorb any radiation coming through the outer hull.

Since I didn't comment on what the rest of the ship needs for shielding (other than that it does need shielding) I don't know what you're getting at here.
I'm not sure a liquid is optimal. At this point I'd have to go into biolofgical effects of various radiation types and energies - which is not possible in 1000 characters.
rwinners
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2013
Robust robust robust. We need a very safe environment, developed in low earth orbit, before venturing out of our own magnetic field.
I've said this before. We need to learn to live in space, long term, before we begin putting human beings on other planets.
We need to develop an living environment in which we can live, essentially, for the rest of a normal human life, before we begin moving out from this planet.
There is no hurry ... at least that I know of.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (24) Jan 01, 2013
Is that all you've got, Blotto? Nothing of value to offer...just ad hominem attacks and name calling.
-So what happens to water inside a spinning globe again? And why do you think that spinning would keep it evenly distributed? And why do you think that spinning would deflect objects which could do this kind of damage:
http://www.flickr...7375706/

-Will spinning just make them bounce off instead of doing damage? Nothing ad hom about these questions. Your unfortunate deficit is self-ad hom enough. Auto-ad hom?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (24) Jan 01, 2013
Oh yeah

"The Other Physorg. IF you have lost or misplaced your The Other Physorg password, I will provide you with the current PW, but ONLY if your User name tallies with the list in my possession of Other Physorg member names. Please keep in mind that I can ONLY help you with the first Community PW. The second and third passwords are YOUR responsibility and you will have to arrange to reset your two passwords with The Other Physorg. Also, please do NOT forget to observe and vet each and any potential member BEFORE you invite them to join our The Other Physorg groups. It is imperative that we KEEP OUT all trolls, cranks, psychos, those aiding and abetting psychos, anti-Capitalists, anti-religionists, sock puppeteers beyond only TWO sock puppets, Socialists, and others whom you believe untrustworthy. Remember!! Our Other Physorg groups are depending on you to preserve our enjoyment of The Other Physorg without hostile individuals."

-Hows your Secret Club going?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (24) Jan 01, 2013
-And if you have a Secret Club full of only nice people like asstronauts and journalists and crepe chefs and such, why the hell are you wasting your time here?
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2013
What secret club? There is no secret club that I'm aware of, Blotto. It's obviously all in your mentally defective mind.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2013
What is a crape chef? I have no idea what you're talking about. And obviously no one else does. If there were such a club, don't you think that antialias would be in it? Or maybe not since many other Physorg commenters have said that they don't trust AA.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
Blotto always commits very serious ad hominem attacks on me and other commenters, even though much of my ideas are still only pure conjecture just as antialias's ideas are conjecture also.
Blotto attacked the pure conjecture posted by Fleetfoot, AA, and myself in the "alien civilizations" thread...constantly interfering along with his sock puppet FrankHerbert so that we could not discuss the topic that we were discussing b/c of Blotto/FrankHerbert constant interference as though our ideas were going to be implemented on the morrow.
Blotto...you sad sack of shit...your boyfriend Richieguy is in the GE salmon thread waiting for your answer. Oh BTW, I have a new user name that I will switch to from this one later.

LOL...I see you have corrected your misspelling of crape chef to crepe chef.
obama_socks
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2013

But it would still not protect the people inside without a cushion of water or some other liquid to absorb any radiation coming through the outer hull.

Since I didn't comment on what the rest of the ship needs for shielding (other than that it does need shielding) I don't know what you're getting at here.
I'm not sure a liquid is optimal. At this point I'd have to go into biolofgical effects of various radiation types and energies - which is not possible in 1000 characters. -AA

Have you any idea as to what type of shielding you would like to have on your cylindrical spaceship? Certainly, you can't expect concrete or lead shielding that would be several feet thick to be installed in such a spacecraft. Also, how big should the living quarters be to accommodate enough astronauts on a long trip to Mars? What do you suggest in terms of protecting the outer hull?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 01, 2013
Oh BTW, I have a new user name that I will switch to from this one later.
Oh dont forget to update your Secret Password as well as the member list for your Secret Club or spanky and alfalfa may not let you in the treehouse.
biolofgical
Perhaps you can find something of use here?
http://foter.com/Biolofgical/
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2013
Certainly, you can't expect concrete or lead shielding that would be several feet thick to be installed in such a spacecraft

That depends on a large number of factors:
- what kind of payload you have (the larger the payload the less relevant the weight of the shielding)
- what kind of drive you'll use (which directly figures into the payload/fuel issue above)
- what kind of speeds you want to go at (as a small pointer to the intricacies of radiation: secondary radiation from shielding matter can be more harmful than the primary radiation it was supposed to block - even though its energy is lower - if you choose the wrong shield material)
- ...

Since we're dealing with a very fuzzy conceptual basis of "space ship" that's not a question so easily answered. But as a first guess intersystem/galactic vessels will be sizeable due to their vast fuel needs - so having a few dozen meters lead shielding isn't going to be a significant addition to the total mass.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2013
Also, how big should the living quarters be to accommodate enough astronauts on a long trip to Mars? What do you suggest in terms of protecting the outer hull?

For a near term Mars mission I'd go without shielding/g-force simulation. That's a trip humans can survive. I'd also advocate something an ex-astronaut said at a conference: Send older astronauts. (55 years or older) Their cell division is slower so they're not as much at risk for additional cancers.

But I don't really see the sense in going to other planets for long durations in biological form, anyhow. We're not adapted to them. And babies certainly don't like being born/raised in low-g environments. So the idea of 'colonizing' somewhere else in this form seems romantic/idiotic to me.
HTK
2.2 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2013
obama & GhostofOtto

Hmm.... ego wars...

There will always be wars. More reason to find a way to get off this planet ASAP! It's a matter of time before it goes nuclear!

And who started it? And who escalated it? And who is ignorant of the basic sciences? I think the evidence is clear, but moving on...

- 14 month to Mars & back from current tech.
- higher speed = higher space debris collisions higher rate of collisions.
- bone mass loss and other physiological deterioration
- harmful radiation
- mass of resource required to be carried

Do not worry fellow men/women, we will have a shield. If anything more and more we seem to adopt all the science fiction inventions from the 1950s to now... so I think some form of shielding will be ready by 2035 that's f the chinese don't beat us. At the rate of advancement, that's just over 2 more decades! Haven't we seen what we can do in 2 decades!
HTK
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2013
Besides... don't we think we will have a new method of propulsion within 20 years?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 01, 2013
the water will remain "trapped"against the outer wall. The only time that the spin can be stopped safely, is if all the water is removed.
Hey pussytard... if all the water was at the equator inside your globeship, maybe this would be an advantage. The asstronauts could sit in little boats, thereby giving a more genuine experience of being on a 'ship', you know? They could fish for sterile female fishies too, at least until they were all gone.

You should bring this up with the nice asstronauts and physmatists and polite-ticians the next time you are in your Secret Club.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (24) Jan 01, 2013
reason to find a way to get off this planet ASAP!
The bible describes a vital Process - the production of the Remnants. The israelites are repeatedly tempted, and the weak and brainless who cannot resist temptation are then culled, leaving a healthier and more committed people to carry on toward the Promised Land.

'Wheat from chaff' as it is referred to.

Throughout history this Process has been used to replace the natural selection which had kept the species healthy until the advent of agriculture.

The US was one such Iteration of this Process. Tired and hungry but clever and ambitious people were given a place where they could escape from the turmoil of overpopulation and decrepitude, where they could start anew. A Promised Land where they could intermingle with people such as themselves from all around the globe.

The Promised Land is never easy to get to, but the choice is often either to leave your culture behind or die.

Off-planet colonies will be the next Promised Land.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013
Besides... don't we think we will have a new method of propulsion within 20 years?
-HTK

I would hope so. Maybe even sooner if all goes well.

Marcos_Toledo
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2013
A magnetic force field around the spacecraft should solve this problem and provide a heat shield as well when taking off and landing on a planet stop making mountains out of mole hills enough with the excuses stop this dog and pony show.
LarryD
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2013
While many of the comments made valueless ('bad' language and name calling')it seems to me that the real problem is one of 'funding'. This point has been mentioned several times in various comments. Human beings are adaptable and intelligent enough to solve the problems as long as we think 'positively'. The two things that really hold us back in explorations of any kind; the way in which our society is structured, Money! The other is how long the physical resources remain available. The former is now so powerful that we cannot live without it and there are those that dribble at the mouth wondering how much wealth they could accumulate on say, Mars. If we don't change our social ideas our resources might be depleted and we run out of time. I know that this is not a comment on the science and maths of the problems but I don't like to think that only the rich will get opportunities in the future.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013
Also, how big should the living quarters be to accommodate enough astronauts on a long trip to Mars? What do you suggest in terms of protecting the outer hull?

For a near term Mars mission I'd go without shielding/g-force simulation. That's a trip humans can survive. I'd also advocate something an ex-astronaut said at a conference: Send older astronauts. (55 years or older) Their cell division is slower so they're not as much at risk for additional cancers.
-AA

You might somehow get away with less shielding, but only if the velocity at which the craft can travel is of a high enough magnitude to get you to Mars as quickly and safely as possible. However, the human body will not be able to withstand the g forces that would make it possible to get there quickly enough to avoid too much radiation on the trip over. It's also possible that the faster the spacecraft travels, the more it is impacted by radiation...and that means heavier shielding is in order for such a trip.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013
I fully agree that older, experienced astronauts should be the first ones to go to Mars. Ones who have had their quota of children already and don't plan for anymore.

As for babies being born on Mars, in the womb the baby floats fairly weightless and only really experiences full gravity upon birth. Some mothers have birthed their babies UNDER water and the babies were seen to make swimming motions. Of course, the were lifted out of the water forthwith. But it did prove that a newborn can stand a lower degree of gravity if adapted to it.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013
"While many of the comments made valueless ('bad' language and name calling')it seems to me that the real problem is one of 'funding'. This point has been mentioned several times in various comments. Human beings are adaptable and intelligent enough to solve the problems as long as we think 'positively'. The two things that really hold us back in explorations of any kind; the way in which our society is structured, Money! " -LarryD

We are presently at a stalemate regarding money. Higher taxes is wanted by the Democrats, but spending cuts are verboten by the Obama regime. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to future funding of science projects such as NASA and other aerospace corporations. NASA is dependent on taxpayer money from Washington, but that funding might be cut down a bit. Independent space corporations who don't depend on the taxpayers for funding, but on investors, will probably be the most likely ones to get to Mars first...unless China goes all out for that honor.

obama_socks
2 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013
I still think that a spherical shaped spacecraft would be optimal in several ways. The inner parts of the ship...living quarters, galley, propulsion system...would be set apart from the moving outer hull. The outer hull would not just roll forward like a ball, but would be constantly turning and twisting horizontally and vertically and every possible way, so that there is no "equator" (suggested by Blotto). Think of a round Rubik's Cube that could twist many different ways; always changing, while the inner compartments stay upright. Better yet, think of a ball of yarn that has unraveled all the way. To foll it up in a ball again, the yarn ball has to be turned every which way so that the yarn will not slip off. That is the premise of the spacecraft in the shape of a sphere.
FrankHerbert
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2013
But it did prove that a newborn can stand a lower degree of gravity if adapted to it.
Lmao you have no idea what you are talking about dumbass. Embryos don't develop properly in microgravity. This isn't the same as "floating" in the womb you profoundly retarded jerk.

The only thing more brain-damaging than cosmic rays: obama_socks' posting.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2013
While many of the comments made valueless ('bad' language and name calling')it seems to me that the real problem is one of 'funding'
No cold fusion research, no money, no funding, no science. Is it really so difficult to understand it? The ignorance of one group of scientists limits the existence of the rest.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2013
Water is often mentioned as a shield because of the large number of protons in cosmic rays. Referring you back to your freshman physics, angular momentum transfer is most efficient in elastic collisions when the colliding objects have equal mass, and water has plenty of protons. If you look at the constituents of cosmic rays http://www.srl.ca...s83.html and figure 2 in http://www.scienc...09000362 , you'll see that the most common are all the elements between hydrogen and oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon, and iron. Hydrogen and oxygen are in the water shielding. Food rations (and dried feces, frankly) will shield carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen (and boron to some extent). Lithium in batteries will shield against lithium and helium (poorly). Beryllium, magnesium, and iron could be used as structural elements. Silicon will be underrepresented (computer chips mostly) so extra will have to be included.
barakn
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2013
This leaves neon, and I can't think of a good reason to have it on board. Its neighbors are sodium and fluorine, but I can't imagine needing a large supply of sodium fluoride around. Perhaps the oxygen and magnesium would do an adequate job. I should add that I am envisioning a spacecraft where the astronauts live in a core surrounded by all the rations and equipment they need acting as the shielding. They won't get to look out windows very often but it sure beats Alzheimer's.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2013
You might somehow get away with less shielding, but only if the velocity at which the craft can travel is of a high enough magnitude to get you to Mars as quickly and safely as possible.

We've had astronauts on trips to the Moon and back which lasted for a week without any noticeable problems and no shielding whatsoever. A trip to Mars would take (taking an optimal high speed course) about twenty times that long.

However, the human body will not be able to withstand the g forces

Given our current propulsion systems g-forces aren't a problem (the only time you have to contend with serious g-forces is during the first few seconds of launch from Earth). There is no way we can get equip a craft with enough fuel to even pull a tenth of a g for the duration of such a high speed transfer.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2013
the more it is impacted by radiation...and that means heavier shielding is in order for such a trip.

Not at the speeds for travel between plantes in the solar system. Blueshift and radiation shift from impact speeds of interstellar particles only matter once you get to significant fractions of light speed. A mission to Mars will be FAR slower. For them the radiation is omnidirectional (with a bump in the direction of sol, of course)

This leaves neon

I'd go with ammonia, as it's needed anyhow in great quantities as a coolant.
They won't get to look out windows very often

Since there's nothing to see why would you have windows at all? They're just a weakpoint in the hull.
m_astera
4 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2013
"However, the human body will not be able to withstand the g forces that would make it possible to get there quickly enough to avoid too much radiation on the trip over."

I haven't done the math, but: With acceleration at 1G (9.8m/sec^2) halfway to Mars, then deceleration at 1G for the second half would probably get a craft to Mars in two weeks or less. Maybe a lot less.

As for having a new propulsion method in 20 years? Not at the rate we have been progressing. Our automobiles are still using the internal combustion engine that Karl Benz used on the first motorcar in 1885. Our space launches are still using the rockets Goddard was launching in the 1920s. The motors have been improved and refined, but nothing new.

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 02, 2013
With acceleration at 1G (9.8m/sec^2) halfway to Mars, then deceleration at 1G for the second half would probably get a craft to Mars in two weeks or less. Maybe a lot less.

Do the math. You'll see that the amount of fuel you'd need to pull one g over that timespan would be humongous (especially at the beginnig the amount of fuel needed would be gargantuan since you'd need to accelerate all the fuel you're going to use later with it)

As for having a new propulsion method in 20 years

The order of developing new propulsion systems is about 20 years. So anything that isn't currently in the pipeline is not going to be deployed in 20 years.
The types that can be ready in that time are improved ion engines (PIT, MPD - preferrably electrodeless.) Though these would require an inordinate amount of power to move a sizeable craft. And generating that kind of power in space (with a relatively lightweight powerplant) is still an unsolved problem.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (27) Jan 02, 2013
Pussytard the very excellent NASA engineer (contract) posits:
The outer hull would not just roll forward like a ball, but would be constantly turning and twisting horizontally and vertically and every possible way, so that there is no "equator"
-while not wondering what would happen to all the water in there, being sloshed around this way and that, creating excellent surf conditions for older astronauts but wreaking havoc with electronics and such...and pretty much negating any flinging actions of radiations or particles or bugs or whatnot.

Pussytard, ever play with a gyroscope? (look it up) What happens when you try to move it around? This 'force' (look it up) must be imported to the inner support structure of your globeship, which would tend to counter-rotate. So what kind of engineer are you anyways? A floral arrangement engineer?

You are a fucking tragedy.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2013
A magnetic force field around the spacecraft should solve this problem and provide a heat shield...stop this dog and pony show.


Well, I also believe that the answer lies in precise EM field attenuation when theorizing about intra solar system and interstellar travel (surprise!). But dog and pony show excuses aren't what is holding us back, the complexity of engineering a craft capable emmitting multiple fields at multiple frequencies (without influencing each other) and the tech/power required to not only sense the external fields at massive distances but adjust the local fields generated by the craft to acheive the required shielding from radiation, small impacts and anything else from which shielding may be required...are a couple of hurdles. Configuring millions of plasma conduits for high temp. superconduction and multiple field generation, "valves" for precise field control, generating the power (possibly hybrid, fission reactor powering fusion tokamek) are other issues.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (25) Jan 02, 2013
As for babies being born on Mars, in the womb the baby floats fairly weightless and only really experiences full gravity upon birth.
Yes because the womb acts as a gravitic faraday cage, in part because it is always moving about like pussytards globeship shell. But scientists don't know for sure.

They only know that babies would come out strong and they would hit the ground running (like gazelles) if they were only subjected to gravity during gestation.

Once babies can be grown outside the womb, humans should be better off on the whole for a number of reasons.

You are a fucking tragedy.
Gino
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2013
The USA is prepared to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans and millions of non Americans by the continuous wars they engage in but are so reluctant to see the lives of their astronauts possibly shortened by radiation.
Many explorers in the past knew they faced terrible risks from hostile environment's and the dangers of their journeys but were prepared to go for the glory of it and I sure there would be no shortage of volunteers, were the travellers to the Moon in the dark ages of space travel guaranteed absolute safety ?
m_astera
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2013
I'm new to this forum, but based on the comments it appears that most posters here think the Apollo missions actually landed on the moon? Ever read Dave McGowan, "Wagging the Moondoggie"?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Jan 02, 2013
On a related issue, pt the NASA ENGINEER (CONTRACT) recently suggested that IR equipment could be added to the Webb at this stage in its construction. 'It launches 2 whole years from now!' -was her reply, and she chose to denigrate all (as any NASA engineer would) who told her the obvious, that it was far too late to make changes.

Well I emailed her NASA colleagues (the real guys) and they graciously provided a response:

"Description:
No, Webb is well past the planning stages and into the building stage.

From:
OPO Outreach
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:09 PM
To: Tracy Vogel
Subject: hubblesite.org"

-It just arrived today.
extinct
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2013
this article and the concerns within it would not exist if people in positions of leadership dropped their archaic thinking and started to think outside the box; cannabis protects human health against *both* cancer and alzheimer's. you can start your research with U.S. patent #6630507 owned by the U.S. government itself, entitled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" and brach out from there.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 02, 2013
Bizarrely NASA seems to be thinking about doing something very similar to the plan I posted earlier about dragging an asteroid into orbit (though the first step would involve a sub 10m asteroid for testing purposes).

http://www.newsci...ine-news
mmgregory
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2013
ok, ok, I'LL go. i'll take my chances :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (22) Jan 02, 2013
Bizarrely NASA seems to be thinking about doing something very similar to the plan I posted earlier about dragging an asteroid into orbit (though the first step would involve a sub 10m asteroid for testing purposes).

http://www.newsci...ine-news
Right. And so I repeat...'50 years tops. Technology is advancing parabolically.'
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 02, 2013
Do the math. You'll see that the amount of fuel you'd need to pull one g over that timespan would be humongous
I keep bringing these breaking technologies up...

"Anatolij Perminov, head of Russian Space Agency announced that RKA is going to develop a nuclear powered spacecraft for deep space travel. Design will be done by 2012, and 9 more years for development (in space assembly)...This system would consist of a space nuclear power and the matrix of ion engines.mission to Mars, with cosmonauts staying on the Red planet for 30 days. This journey to Mars with nuclear propulsion and a steady accelaration would take 6 weeks, instead of 8 months by using chemical propulsion - assuming thrust of 300 times higher than that of chemical propulsion..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 02, 2013
"The fission-fragment rocket is a rocket engine design that directly harnesses hot nuclear fission products for thrust, as opposed to using a separate fluid as working mass. The design can, in theory, produce very high specific impulses while still being well within the abilities of current technologies."

"Antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion is a variation of nuclear pulse propulsion based upon the injection of antimatter into a mass of nuclear fuel which normally would not be useful in propulsion...Work has been performed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on antiproton-initiated fusion as early as 2004...several groups have studied antimatter-catalyzed micro fission/fusion engines in the lab (sometimes antiproton as opposed to antimatter)...a profound reduction in system mass...the concept appears to be feasible using technology and infrastructure likely to be made available during the second half of the 21st century"

-Impulse velocity is more important than mass.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 02, 2013
Heres another:

"MagBeam is different from a traditional electrostatic ion thruster in several ways, the primary one being that instead of the fuel and propulsion system being part of the payload craft, they are instead located on a platform held in orbit...The helicon drive produces a tight beam of ions as the magnetic field that accelerates them continuously expands with the plasma beam keeping them focused. This ion beam is used to push a payload which is equipped with a small amount of gas for propellant such as argon or xenon, a power source and a set of electromagnets to produce a mini-magnetosphere magnetic sail...This results in an acceleration of around 1 ms−2, much faster than traditional ion propulsion systems...a round-trip from Earth to Mars in 90 days, with 11 days stop-over at Mars... reaching speeds as high as 20 km/s. The deceleration is accomplished by having another platform at the other end of the journey directing a plasma beam at the payload."
RitchieGuy01
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2013
ahhhh. . .GhostofOtto. . .kiss kiss my love. No one else on physorg is as smart as U. It is U who knows everything and nobody else knows as much as U do. They all just pretend to know just to impress U. I know that you laugh at everyone else that posts in your physorg. YES. . .this IS your physorg and nobody has the right to post their imbecillic junk without YOUR aproval.

U hve been avoiding me lately, Ghost. Have U found another man to suuck on?

When are we gonna get together again at our favorite motel darling. Remember all those nites we spent together in bed making love? It was pure heaven. I have missed you so much. I see that you're going after other men and looking for some pussytard. Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me. I thought we were suppose ta get married. Those other men don't deserve you the way I do. I'll have to leave this message everywhere I find U. U have my number. . .give me a call, my precious sweetums
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2013
RitchieGuy definitely isn't obama_socks. No siree!

Retard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (24) Jan 03, 2013
Yet one more;

"IEEE Spectrum - John J. Chapman, a NASA engineer, is proposing nuclear fusion propulsion for space satellites and space probes. He made a presentation at the IEEE Symposium on Fusion Engineering in Chicago.

"In Chapman's aneutronic fusion reactor scheme, a commercially available benchtop laser starts the reaction. A beam with energy on the order of 2 x 10^18 watts per square centimeter, pulse frequencies up to 75 megahertz, and wavelengths between 1 and 10 micrometers is aimed at a two-layer, 20-centimeter-diameter target."
http://nextbigfut...html?m=1
RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
SEE THAT. That proves how much smarter my GhostofOtto is than all the rest of U retards.
Y'all need to consider to stop commenting in physorg because y'all are just to retarded to give your dumbass opinions. My lover man GhostofOtto runs rings around all the rest of U. He KNOWS how to Google.

Otto, I sold my sorghum farm to my brother in Sicily and he will grow sorghum when he comes back to Florida. I did that so that U and I can be married.

All the rest of U tards who keep on voting down my GhostofOtto and his sockpuppets such as FrankHerbert. . . .please stop doing it. Don't U understand yet that Otto then has to give himself all fives so he can get up to 5/5?
Neinsense99
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013
"Slow rotations over a 700 to 800 foot radius is the minimum radius which is believed to be practical."

Hardly. There is no real need to keep rotation rates slower than 1 rpm. Most research indicates the majority of people are able to adjust to and function in rotating environments at 1 g and 2 or 3 rpm. With adjustment periods at slower rotation, or lower levels of simulated gravity, shorter radii and higher rotation rates could be viable. Try a few parameters for yourself at http://www.artifi...Calc.htm
With 2 or 3 rotations per minute, the radii are much smaller than 700 feet.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
At typical interplanetary velocities, blueshifting of ionized radiation is negligible. Spinning a sphere won't deflect much, as cosmic rays and other particles would hit against the direction of spin as well as with it, though an angle might mean a particle would have more mass to penetrate compared to a straight on collision.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
Sleeping areas will be in the most heavily protected portions of any ship, to take advantage of unavoidable periods of immobility. Much less mass is required to shield one or more sleeping people than to shield an entire habitat to the same level of protection.
Neinsense99
1 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
"And that's why we have evolution. Let's have babies in space."
If they are all movie space babes, I'm willing to do my part. What's that? Oh...
Gino
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2013
Evolution only works over many generations with the unfit dying young before they are able to breed and the fittest producing more offspring.
xen_uno
1.9 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2013
... and yet the destruction of likely the only oasis within 100 light years continues unabated. Silly humans
HTK
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2013
VASIMR rocket is the only way now to get us safely to Mars.

Apparently in 39 days.... Currently at 200KW/s...

But by the time the proposed 2033 to Mars, maybe we will turn it into 10-20 GW/s.

And the VASIMR can produce gravitational fields that may reduce radiation bombardment from all sides.

Currently it seems like the only future tech available to do the job.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Jan 06, 2013
And the VASIMR can produce gravitational fields that may reduce radiation bombardment from all sides.
Uh how does it do this? And how would artificial gravity affect radiation moving at or near the speed of light?
RazorsEdge
not rated yet Jan 07, 2013
Back to the mice: How did the researchers model a round trip to Mars? Did they expose mice to radiation for 1.5 years and use a particle accelerator for 1.5 years? If they increased the exposure to compress time then they didn't model "low levels of exposure for a long time".
RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2013
@TheGhostofOtto1923 aka FrankHerbert
Otto. . . . .why are U telling lies about me and why are U saying that all these other people are me? U KNOW that there is only ONE RITCHIEGUY and that is ME. U have been looking for me in all those other people just so that U can pretend that U aren't a homosexual, but we both know that U have turned me on to the joys of suck suck and anal sex when U showed me your bigjuicycock at the motel where we stayed each nite.
And now U are avoiding talking to me and U won't even call me. Why?
U told me U love me and that we could get married when same sex marriage becomes legal.
But now U are pretending that U don't know me even tho U called everyone RitchieGuy and they aren't me.
Otto, please call me and let me back into your life, I don't want anyone else but U.

RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2013
And the VASIMR can produce gravitational fields that may reduce radiation bombardment from all sides.
UUh how does it do this? And how would artificial gravity affect radiation moving at or near the speed of light?
GhostofOtto

Otto darling. . . . .why do U persist in doing that to people?
He said it MAY reduce radiation bombardment. . . . .he didn't say it WILL.

U ALWAYS read too much in what people say, even though the technology might not exist yet. Then U demand that they explain to U how its gonna be done. U always sound like an idiot when U do that, don't U know? If it can be done, then look it up on Wikipedia like your always telling other people to do. U sweet cockman.

If there was such a thing as 'artificial gravity affect radiation moving at or near the speed of light', wouldn't it be in Wikepedia by now? Your great at finding all your info from Wikipedia and posting it, so look it up yourself, darling.

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 07, 2013
Did they expose mice to radiation for 1.5 years and use a particle accelerator for 1.5 years? If they increased the exposure to compress time then they didn't model "low levels of exposure for a long time".

Radiation exposure is a stochastic effect. So going for high levels for a short time is not different than observing low levels over a longer period.*

* With the proviso that you don't go to such high levels that they produce and inflammation response.
Steven_Anderson
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2013
My thought—proposed as a question due to my ignorance on the details of the science involved is this.
We have recently made advancement with a propulsion system which uses long mile long antenna's to deflect the solar wind.
If one were to make a ship with these antennas spaced out like a porcupine in all directions and placing a charge on them one could create a field that would be small but would have the strength the channel the radiation along less harmful paths the actual shape of the ship would have to be modeled to mathematically determine the best spacing of the spines and the actual location of the channels. See below for rest of long post.
Steven_Anderson
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2013
This I would think would allow for a reduction in the actual field strength need. I am thinking kind of like rivers and tributaries or alternatively like a radiation cloak.
I have no idea how expensive either of these would be or how compatible it could be made with a rotating vessel using tether cables. (Which by the way we can now spin kilometer long threads that are 10 times stronger than steel (1.4 Giga Pascal's ) in strength that are conductive and flexible and one tenth the thickness of a human hair that could be woven into fibers for the rotating cylinder or as sheaths to put over the spines for electrical conductivity and shielding which we might be able to use to produce a field with the addition of other layers. (Not sure if this would work.) But with a rotation about 1,2 or 3 axis it would create artificial gravity while making a bunch of radiation channels.
Steven_Anderson
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2013
the length of the antena's would vary in order to make the ideal flow path. Kind of like those kids toys where you press your hands on needles and it forms the shape of your hand.I hope my ignorance in the physics of this isn't shining through too awfully.
GarO
not rated yet Jan 17, 2013
"There is apparently some problems associated with high speed/small radius approaches. Dizziness, etc. Also, at small radii, there is a difference in effective gravity over the height of a person. Stand up and your head gets lighter."

No problem. I get dizzy and my head gets lighter when I stand up most of the time right here on Earth but I still get things done. :)
GarO
not rated yet Jan 17, 2013
I fully agree that older, experienced astronauts should be the first ones to go to Mars.


I volunteer.