No worries. I wear a tinfoil hat already.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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

Pointless discussion. Ridiculous article. won't have any meaning anyway once they release electro gravitic propulsion.

And that's why we have evolution. Let's have babies in space.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

oops, that should be " water ice _and_ magnetic fields

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.

Astronaut: Houston we have a problem!!
Houston: What kind of problem?
Astronaut: ...There is a problem?

No worries. I wear a tinfoil hat already.

Guffaw..... 8D

That's why we have robots to do the work for us.

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 ... :-)

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.

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?).

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.

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.

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

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.

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 -?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The whole thing is still a century or so (at least) beyond us.

50 years tops. Technology is advancing parabolically.
http://www.parabo...ologies/

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.

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?

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?

@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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

-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?

What secret club? There is no secret club that I'm aware of, Blotto. It's obviously all in your mentally defective mind.

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.

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.

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?

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/

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.

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.

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!

Besides... don't we think we will have a new method of propulsion within 20 years?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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"?

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.

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.

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

ok, ok, I'LL go. i'll take my chances :)

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.'

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..."

"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.

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."

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

RitchieGuy definitely isn't obama_socks. No siree!

Retard.

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

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?

Evolution only works over many generations with the unfit dying young before they are able to breed and the fittest producing more offspring.

... and yet the destruction of likely the only oasis within 100 light years continues unabated. Silly humans

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.

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?

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".

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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. :)

I fully agree that older, experienced astronauts should be the first ones to go to Mars.

I volunteer.