Topic: Space is not like Star Trek

[red_green]

There was an article in the local paper here saying that NASA may be taking a new direction afte rthe loss of the Columbia.
It discusses the possibility of a trip to Mars and the problem with radiation.

It said that an astronaut who spent 80 days in the spacelab was exposed to background radiation equivalent to 50 years worth on earth. This amount is not considered harmful though it is right at the point where we need to worry about health risks.  It went on to state that with the current propulsion available,  in the amount of time it would take to do a trip to Mars, an Astronaut would be exposed to about (dang forgot the number) but it was alot. Too high too do safely.
Apparently one would be bombarded by fast moving random protons. Enough that every cell would be hit and may be damaged.

The person interviewed stated. "People think space is like Star Trek. Well its not"  He said that on Earth,  protecting people from that amount of radiation would be easy. Just surround them with lead or concrete. However those materials are too heavy to be put on a space ship.  The other solution is get better propulsion so the trip does not take so long.

Just posted this to see what people think and if anyone has any other insite into it.

[Sirgod]

any chance you can post a link from your local Paper?

But your right thee is alot of differances Between Space Flight and Star Trek.

Hiesenberg Compensators come to mind.  

Stephen

[Towelie]

   Well in ST they used navigational deflector shields to protect the ships from radiation, light debris, micrometeorites and other annoying particles.

   It would seem the best appoach for a mission to Mars would be to assemble the vehicle in orbit. That way you don't have to launch one large massive vessle in one shot. Of course this delays any chances of hitting Mars for a while, but that is already to be expected.

   I wonder how much of the radiation is from solar activity, flares and ect. Also I wonder how strong an electromagnetic field would have to be to deflect some of them.

  And just to show off what a geek I am,  Heisenberg compensators in ST were used in transporters to overcome a problem that exists in modern quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princible. In modern quantum mechanics, you can accurately determain the course or the momentum of a sub-atomic particle but not both at the same time. This makes it extremely difficult to accurately track motions of sub-atomic particles. In ST, the Heisenberg compensators (I would assume) magically overcome this dilemma and allows transporters to accurately determain both speed and course of sub-atomic particles (a miracle in itself required to accurately dissassemble and reassemble matter).


 
Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976)  

   I feel bad, how many teenagers did you know that read Stephen Hawking's books?  I started reading them when I was 13. I got to post my picture sometime soon to refute my geekiness, but darn, I am overdue for a haircut and haven't had the time to see my barber (I only trust one person on Earth to touch my hair).

[Stormbringer]

I posted an article on new radiation shielding technology using hydrogenated polymers. The radiation concerns are not so insurmountable as some experts with an agenda to go to totally robotic space exploration would have you believe. The rest of it is simple ignorance of the state of the various technologies, but without an agenda.

BTW : I'm back. The funeral was wednesday.  

[red_green]

There was an article in the local paper here saying that NASA may be taking a new direction afte rthe loss of the Columbia.
It discusses the possibility of a trip to Mars and the problem with radiation.

It said that an astronaut who spent 80 days in the spacelab was exposed to background radiation equivalent to 50 years worth on earth. This amount is not considered harmful though it is right at the point where we need to worry about health risks.  It went on to state that with the current propulsion available,  in the amount of time it would take to do a trip to Mars, an Astronaut would be exposed to about (dang forgot the number) but it was alot. Too high too do safely.
Apparently one would be bombarded by fast moving random protons. Enough that every cell would be hit and may be damaged.

The person interviewed stated. "People think space is like Star Trek. Well its not"  He said that on Earth,  protecting people from that amount of radiation would be easy. Just surround them with lead or concrete. However those materials are too heavy to be put on a space ship.  The other solution is get better propulsion so the trip does not take so long.

Just posted this to see what people think and if anyone has any other insite into it.

[Sirgod]

any chance you can post a link from your local Paper?

But your right thee is alot of differances Between Space Flight and Star Trek.

Hiesenberg Compensators come to mind.  

Stephen

[Towelie]

   Well in ST they used navigational deflector shields to protect the ships from radiation, light debris, micrometeorites and other annoying particles.

   It would seem the best appoach for a mission to Mars would be to assemble the vehicle in orbit. That way you don't have to launch one large massive vessle in one shot. Of course this delays any chances of hitting Mars for a while, but that is already to be expected.

   I wonder how much of the radiation is from solar activity, flares and ect. Also I wonder how strong an electromagnetic field would have to be to deflect some of them.

  And just to show off what a geek I am,  Heisenberg compensators in ST were used in transporters to overcome a problem that exists in modern quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princible. In modern quantum mechanics, you can accurately determain the course or the momentum of a sub-atomic particle but not both at the same time. This makes it extremely difficult to accurately track motions of sub-atomic particles. In ST, the Heisenberg compensators (I would assume) magically overcome this dilemma and allows transporters to accurately determain both speed and course of sub-atomic particles (a miracle in itself required to accurately dissassemble and reassemble matter).


 
Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976)  

   I feel bad, how many teenagers did you know that read Stephen Hawking's books?  I started reading them when I was 13. I got to post my picture sometime soon to refute my geekiness, but darn, I am overdue for a haircut and haven't had the time to see my barber (I only trust one person on Earth to touch my hair).

[Stormbringer]

I posted an article on new radiation shielding technology using hydrogenated polymers. The radiation concerns are not so insurmountable as some experts with an agenda to go to totally robotic space exploration would have you believe. The rest of it is simple ignorance of the state of the various technologies, but without an agenda.

BTW : I'm back. The funeral was wednesday.  

[red_green]

There was an article in the local paper here saying that NASA may be taking a new direction afte rthe loss of the Columbia.
It discusses the possibility of a trip to Mars and the problem with radiation.

It said that an astronaut who spent 80 days in the spacelab was exposed to background radiation equivalent to 50 years worth on earth. This amount is not considered harmful though it is right at the point where we need to worry about health risks.  It went on to state that with the current propulsion available,  in the amount of time it would take to do a trip to Mars, an Astronaut would be exposed to about (dang forgot the number) but it was alot. Too high too do safely.
Apparently one would be bombarded by fast moving random protons. Enough that every cell would be hit and may be damaged.

The person interviewed stated. "People think space is like Star Trek. Well its not"  He said that on Earth,  protecting people from that amount of radiation would be easy. Just surround them with lead or concrete. However those materials are too heavy to be put on a space ship.  The other solution is get better propulsion so the trip does not take so long.

Just posted this to see what people think and if anyone has any other insite into it.

[Sirgod]

any chance you can post a link from your local Paper?

But your right thee is alot of differances Between Space Flight and Star Trek.

Hiesenberg Compensators come to mind.  

Stephen

[Towelie]

   Well in ST they used navigational deflector shields to protect the ships from radiation, light debris, micrometeorites and other annoying particles.

   It would seem the best appoach for a mission to Mars would be to assemble the vehicle in orbit. That way you don't have to launch one large massive vessle in one shot. Of course this delays any chances of hitting Mars for a while, but that is already to be expected.

   I wonder how much of the radiation is from solar activity, flares and ect. Also I wonder how strong an electromagnetic field would have to be to deflect some of them.

  And just to show off what a geek I am,  Heisenberg compensators in ST were used in transporters to overcome a problem that exists in modern quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princible. In modern quantum mechanics, you can accurately determain the course or the momentum of a sub-atomic particle but not both at the same time. This makes it extremely difficult to accurately track motions of sub-atomic particles. In ST, the Heisenberg compensators (I would assume) magically overcome this dilemma and allows transporters to accurately determain both speed and course of sub-atomic particles (a miracle in itself required to accurately dissassemble and reassemble matter).


 
Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976)  

   I feel bad, how many teenagers did you know that read Stephen Hawking's books?  I started reading them when I was 13. I got to post my picture sometime soon to refute my geekiness, but darn, I am overdue for a haircut and haven't had the time to see my barber (I only trust one person on Earth to touch my hair).

[Stormbringer]

I posted an article on new radiation shielding technology using hydrogenated polymers. The radiation concerns are not so insurmountable as some experts with an agenda to go to totally robotic space exploration would have you believe. The rest of it is simple ignorance of the state of the various technologies, but without an agenda.

BTW : I'm back. The funeral was wednesday.