Mars trips may involve less radiation exposure than previously thought:
There's no question that the first human mission to Mars will be extremely dangerous. Some studies have suggested that the radiation levels would exceed the maximum career dose for a given astronaut, greatly increasing the risk of cancer and other illnesses. It might not be quite so bad as it sounds, though. Newly presented ESA ExoMars orbiter data indicates that astronauts would receive "at least" 60 percent of their maximum recommended career radiation exposure on a round trip to Mars that takes six months both ways. That's still several times what ISS crew members receive, but it's relatively gentle compared to what some had feared.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20 2018, @10:19PM (2 children)
The point was that there is nothing you actually "know", so no one should even use that term except in a religious context.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 20 2018, @10:48PM (1 child)
You absolutely should *not* use the term in religious contexts - by and large there are no facts to support religious assertions, it's pure faith. And without testable facts, you have only belief, not knowledge.
Facts meanwhile are the raw data about which everyone (intellectually honest) can agree upon. Everyone can agree that rocks are hard - if you deny the evidence of your senses (aka the natural universe) then you have no basis for building knowledge at all. You'll be in the grip of Descartes radical doubt, and cogito ergo sum is the *only* thing you can ever know. Even he could not endure that and jumped down a series of very questionable assumptions to escape back to a belief in the natural universe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20 2018, @10:59PM
So you "know" we don't live in a simulation then? If billionaires and scientists are trying to "break out of the simulation", it doesn't sound like a self defeating belief to me...