Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Blackmoore on Friday October 24 2014, @08:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the in-space-noone-can-hear-you-cook dept.

The Register reports

  A drop in the solar wind of a kind not seen since 1715 has made travel beyond Earth orbit a lot more dangerous, according to Professor Nathan Schwadron, studying data from the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation – so much so that a manned Mission to Mars may not be feasible for many decades.

The Sun may be entering a so-called "Maunder Minimum", a lengthy spell of low activity. Such a minimum last occurred from 1645-1715. Solar Minimums are characterized by significant reduction in the solar wind.

The solar wind normally has the effect of reducing the amount of dangerous cosmic radiation that can reach the inner solar system. While particles and radiation from the Sun are dangerous to astronauts, cosmic rays are even worse, so the effect of a solar calm is to make space even more radioactive than it already is.

For the sake of planning, a 3 per cent risk of an astronaut dying due to radiation exposure during a mission is seen as the acceptable limit: it's a dangerous job, after all (one should note that the death would probably be after the mission from cancer, perhaps many years later, rather than from severe radiation sickness while still in space). From Schwadron and his crew's analysis, if a lengthy solar quiet spell is indeed in the cards, the maximum time an astronaut can reasonably spend in space will be well under a year.

The time to 3 per cent Risk of Exposure Induced Death (REID) in interplanetary space was less than 400 days for a 30 year old male and less than 300 days for a 30 year old female in the last solar Maximum cycle.

The time to 3 per cent REID is estimated to be ~20 per cent lower in the coming solar Minimum cycle. If the heliospheric magnetic field continues to weaken over time, as is likely, then allowable mission duration will decrease correspondingly to about 320 days for men, 240 days for women.

Using our current technology, Space.com says the fasted time to Mars orbit is 168 days, making even a manned fly-by mission perilously close to the 300 day limit.

One way missions would still seem possible. But the Martian atmosphere provides precious little shielding and a solar minimum would double the amount of cosmic radiation on the surface.

Former NASA astronaut Dr Franklin Chang Díaz has suggested that nuclear plants of the type used in submarines could power plasma rockets to take a crewed ship to Mars in a month.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3) by TrumpetPower! on Friday October 24 2014, @08:59PM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Friday October 24 2014, @08:59PM (#109720) Homepage

    ...of why this whole fantasy about "We gotta get off Earth to save the species" is pure bunk. Even if the ozone layer went away entirely, Earth would still have far less of a radiation hazard than Mars ever will. And that's long before we get to the air, the water, the soil, the minerals, the biosphere, and everything else we take for granted. Ever try to repair (let alone rebuild) machinery without rubber and plastics? Where're you going to get the raw materials for your rubber and plastics on Mars to maintain your industrial infrastructure? How're you going to survive on Mars without your industrial infrastructure?

    Don't get me worng. I'm all for manned space exploration, and desperately wish the trillions we've spent killing brown people over the past decade had instead gone to NASA.

    But I support manned space exploration for the same reason I support unmanned space exploration, as well as the research at CERN and all the rest: not because of any (obvious) practical creature benefits we might attain from them, but rather because...well, what's the point of living in a place as amazing as this Universe if we don't learn as much about it as we possibly can?

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday October 24 2014, @09:26PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday October 24 2014, @09:26PM (#109735) Journal

      If Mars becomes a feasible target for permanent settlement, it will be because of huge advances in technology that will make it easier/cheaper/possible to live in such a barren and remote environment. I think most proponents of "getting off Earth" either understand that or are misinformed, but why attack them? If they could even get the funding to travel and live on Mars without a sound plan, they will simply die out on Mars. Are you intending to criticize the Mars One reality TV project? That's the only group I can think of that is currently rattling a tin can and getting significant press for a dubious Mars venture.

      How could a realistic Mars settlement be sustained? Fusion energy so cheap and plentiful that it could allow you to make something useful from the surface regolith. Indoor vertical aquaponics using LEDs, precisely attuned use of resources (including GMOs), and fish farming for a feedback loop. Advanced recycling: you bring the crushed aluminum (using cheap propulsion), and you keep reusing the same aluminum and other materials by applying your cheap fusion energy. Don't forget the possibility of crashing a few asteroids or comets into Mars. Further out, if technology can tackle the thin atmosphere or the magnetosphere problems, it will be done. I don't expect it to be done within this century, but maybe we will be pleasantly surprised.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1) by mvar on Friday October 24 2014, @09:54PM

        by mvar (2539) on Friday October 24 2014, @09:54PM (#109746)

        You're spot on. Colonizing other planets with today's technology is obviously not so feasible but we can't tell what's gonna happen in 100+ years. The biggest hurdle as you said is cheap energy, if (or when) we manage to overcome this, everything is possible

        • (Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday October 24 2014, @10:36PM

          by el_oscuro (1711) on Friday October 24 2014, @10:36PM (#109754)

          In 1903, the Wright brothers took the first powered flight, which lasted 12 seconds, and reached a maximum altitude of 20 feed. Less then 66 years later we landed a man on the moon. In 100 years, we could have cruise ships to Alpha Centuri.

          --
          SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday October 24 2014, @11:30PM

          by cafebabe (894) on Friday October 24 2014, @11:30PM (#109764) Journal

          In the book Moonrush by Dennis Wingo, there a detailed and costed argument for the use of existing technology to do mining and heavy industry on the Moon. That means using Saturn V rockets and Soyez capsules. It may be ugly and it may not optimize opportunities for pork-barreling but the general argument is that better to construct a way-station with trusted technology and a suboptimal number of launches. The cost for the program is less than the US sub-prime mortgage fiasco or the US student loan bubble. The program also has a ROI of 22 years.

          --
          1702845791×2
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 24 2014, @10:00PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday October 24 2014, @10:00PM (#109747)

        A tiny fraction of these Mars technologies would be enough to make the earth deserts into livable places, for the excess human population.

        But while "living in the Sahel or the Gobi" doesn't make people throw their money at you, "living on Mars" does.
        If you keep the Earth-too/Mars-only tech fund allocation right, humanity may advance a bit.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 24 2014, @10:23PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday October 24 2014, @10:23PM (#109750) Journal

          True. There's a political aspect to it too. Living in the Gobi desert means living in China. Living on Mars means living on a land with no cultural history, no recognized property claims, no airspace rules, etc. It represents complete emancipation from Earth. Living in the barren deserts (or tundras) of Earth gives you the Mars-lite challenges without the vast opportunities that could be realized by sufficiently advanced technologies. It's also a challenge in another respect: here on Earth we are fighting desertification, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and climate change. We may turn to geoengineering to try to fix some of these problems but there will be big disagreements over the cost and effectiveness, and the whole planet has a stake in the process. On Mars, you either live sustainably from the start or try to change Mars. You start with 100% of the worst desert/tundra imaginable, but no Earth treaty can realistically stop a well-funded future group from slamming comets into Mars as part of a terraforming scheme.

          At least the deserts are getting some attention. [google.com]

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:47AM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:47AM (#109778) Journal

        Sadly I don't even think any of that would help because with Mars the core is dead and even with the most fantasistic Sci-Fi has anybody come up with even a slightly plausible way of restarting a planet core that is completely dead. No core means no magnetic field of any note which means cooked planet, sure you could probably build huge ass domes that filtered everything but if you wanted to do that they would work just as well on Earth.

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 25 2014, @01:27AM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday October 25 2014, @01:27AM (#109784) Journal

          Do we know that for sure? (I mean the dead part, not the restarting part).

          Wasn't that long ago there was some speculation about a molten Lunar core [designntrend.com].

          Also, the speculation that a molten core is necessary is just that. Speculation based on our vast knowledge of planets (ONE).

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:36PM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:36PM (#109944) Journal

            Yes sadly we know for sure as between us and the Soviets we have done pretty extensive scans of its magnetic field and yeah...she's dead Jim. While it likely had a spinning core (and was a lot like earth) a long time ago for whatever reason (I've heard a couple theories) the core solidified and cooled and no core spin? No magnetic field, no shielding, no life.

            And I wouldn't call it speculation as we know how magnets work Frojack and its the magnetic field that protects us from the solar winds and cosmic rays.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2014, @09:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2014, @09:48PM (#109745)

      Where're you going to get the raw materials for your rubber and plastics on Mars to maintain your industrial infrastructure? How're you going to survive on Mars without your industrial infrastructure?

      Find some other way to do it. Find some resource that's plentiful and use a lot of it.

      Nobody says it's going to be easy, and nobody says it's possible today. I personally don't think it will be feasible for at least 200 years. But using that as an argument to say that humanity doesn't need to leave Earth is flawed reasoning. Just because Earth sans ozone is more habitable than Mars doesn't mean that Earth is indefinitely habitable as a long-term solution. And if the task of ensuring long-term solutions is difficult, we'd better start now.

      • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Friday October 24 2014, @10:55PM

        by Leebert (3511) on Friday October 24 2014, @10:55PM (#109757)

        Nobody says it's going to be easy,

        Indeed. As was best explained by a previous space exploration visionary:

        "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills. Because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

        Well, OK. We do it to show the commies who's boss, also.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Friday October 24 2014, @11:14PM

      by cafebabe (894) on Friday October 24 2014, @11:14PM (#109761) Journal

      Going to Mars is a complete folly but the Moon is entirely worthwhile for minerals and also pushing heavy industry outside of the biosphere. After civilization on the Moon has bootstrapped then we can think about going 10 times further.

      --
      1702845791×2
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:21AM (#109771)

        I do wish someone would name the minerals that are more abundant on the Moon and easier to scoop up and transport to refiners|manufacturers than what is already on Earth.

        ...specifically since the Moon and Earth are strongly suspected to have once been 1 body.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:44AM

          by cafebabe (894) on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:44AM (#109776) Journal

          Dennis Wingo says [universetoday.com]:-

          Let's assume the money is available and a CISLunar economy is beginning. Where would your job be?

          My job would be in two phases.

          Phase I is the construction of some portions of the in-space infrastructure needed for the Cis-Lunar economy utilizing my method of in orbit assembly. This would be to construct things like a large solar electric tug (our company Orbital Recovery [orbitalrecovery.com] is developing a small tug to service the GEO comsat market now using conventional methods) that would move heavy payloads from ISS or another orbital facility to the Earth/Moon L1 libration point. This is the optimum location for a supply depot/fueling stop for a Cis-lunar economy. Another piece of hardware would be a reusable lunar lander. It is far easier to build a single stage to orbit vehicle for the Moon versus the earth (2.5 km/sec delta v versus 7 kilometers per second delta v).

          Phase II is the development of in-situ resource extraction technology for oxygen, water, and valuable metals such as the Platinum Group metals described in the book. The "waste metals" such as iron, nickel, cobalt, would be used to build up infrastructure on the Moon such as large habitation structures, railroads, power distribution networks, and the like. In phase II we would also develop large heavy lift launch vehicles that would cycle from the Moon's surface to L1. The amazing thing about President Bush’s announcement on January 14, 2004 was his putting forth the idea of vehicles built on the Moon that would carry us to Mars. If I build a launch vehicle there I am unencumbered with the requirement to make the launch vehicle look like a pencil.

          So, it isn't specifically the abundance but it is the ability to separate minerals and ship them from a relatively low gravity well.

          --
          1702845791×2
    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday October 25 2014, @01:44AM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 25 2014, @01:44AM (#109786)

      Even if the ozone layer went away entirely, Earth would still have far less of a radiation hazard than Mars ever will.

      It will take a very long time for radiation from WWIII to reach Mars.

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:36PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 26 2014, @03:36PM (#110252) Journal

      well, what's the point of living in a place as amazing as this Universe if we don't learn as much about it as we possibly can?

      Because dying sucks? And to be honest, we aren't going to learn very much about the universe, one way or another, unless major technology breakthroughs happen within our expected lifespans (particularly, to make us live much longer than currently).

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday October 24 2014, @09:04PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday October 24 2014, @09:04PM (#109722) Journal

    We should use a fission/fusion rocket to get there in 30-90 days. Decreasing the time to Mars orbit will make a mission more practical anyway, so this should be the goal regardless of radiation risks. Nobody's going to wait 70 years to go to Mars, but spacecraft and shielding should be better in 20 years. NASA's planned date for Mars is 2035, around when Mars will be closer to Earth.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 24 2014, @09:23PM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday October 24 2014, @09:23PM (#109733) Journal

      Agreed, given that there is no rush, Mars isn't going anywhere, taking the time to get a propulsion solution in place makes way more sense then one way missions.
      It will pay dividends for the entire exploration effort.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday October 24 2014, @09:13PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday October 24 2014, @09:13PM (#109728)

    Considering the success rate of the missions to Mars so far, I don't think the odds of getting a cancer rank really high in the minds of people vying to put their name on the "famous for something" list.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 24 2014, @09:28PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday October 24 2014, @09:28PM (#109736) Journal

    How did this entire story become one big QUOTE?

    That is NOT the way I submitted it.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1) by takyon on Friday October 24 2014, @09:40PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday October 24 2014, @09:40PM (#109743) Journal

      I managed to make a link to your submission [soylentnews.org]. Not easy, I had to count backwards from the unapproved ones.

      It looks like what you didn't have in your blockquote was just material directly lifted from El Reg, not written by you. I'm guessing that's why Blackmoore put it all in one blockquote. Now we have an unnecessary blockquote inside the necessary blockquote.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Friday October 24 2014, @11:03PM

    by e_armadillo (3695) on Friday October 24 2014, @11:03PM (#109759)

    I don't know, but it seems to me that rather than try to just focus on getting there faster, or going when the radiation drops, somebody should be thinking about how to shield against the radiation on the vehicle itself. Inter-planetary travel, or hell any travel beyond Mars would need shielding, right? So, why not explore those options now?

    I am sure my ignorance is showing, but I had to ask.

    --
    "How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 24 2014, @11:28PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday October 24 2014, @11:28PM (#109763) Journal

      Well there was the idea of putting your feces in the walls, but the shorter travel time should make that unnecessary.

      There probably will be some kind of metamaterial advance that leads to better shielding in a couple of decades. But it's not really that dire. 3% risk of dying from radiation (even decades later, not immediately) isn't a high risk. Manned Mars fly-by missions will be able to clock under 168 days round trip. The radiation levels could return to normal over the next 20 years. The shielding will improve. The "risk" will end up less than 3%.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:08AM (#109767)

    finally, we know what's causing solar system warming.

  • (Score: 1) by Gravis on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:55AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:55AM (#109823)

    venus has an atmosphere that is six times as dense as Earth's. so why not take some of that excess and send it to mars? by doing this we could begin to terraform both mars and venus.

    i dont claim it will be quick or easy but with the right math and large machines in venus' orbit, we could eject a stream of venus' atmosphere that would be intercepted by mars. the result would cool venus and insulate mars, making them far more suitable for colonization.