Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday June 25 2019, @09:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the good-news-for-hams? dept.

Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration

The last astronauts of the Apollo program were lucky. Not just because they were chosen to fly to the Moon, but because they missed some really bad weather en route. This wasn't a hurricane or heat wave, but space weather – the term for radiation in the solar system, much of which is released by the Sun. In August 1972, right in between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 missions, a solar storm occurred sending out dangerous bursts of radiation. On Earth, we're protected by our magnetic field, but out in space, this would have been hazardous for the astronauts.

The ability to forecast these kinds of events is increasingly important as NASA prepares to send the first woman and the next man to the Moon under the Artemis program. Research now underway may have found a reliable new method to predict this solar activity. The Sun's activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration

Video of presentation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jP9_4uoEdKg

NASA Predicts Next Solar Cycle will be Lowest in 200 Years (Dalton Minimum Levels) + the Implication

An approaching Grand Solar Minimum is gaining evermore support. Even NASA appears to be on-board, with their recent SC25 prediction — though, predictably, they stay clear of the implications.

NASA's forecast for the next solar cycle (25) reveals it will be the weakest of the last 200 years.

The maximum of this next cycle — measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level — could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one.

The agency's results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025

[...]

NASA attempts to paint the upcoming solar shutdown as a window of opportunity for space missions, "the improving ability to make such predictions about space weather are good news for mission planners who can schedule human exploration missions during periods of lower radiation."

This is absurd, and serves as yet another example of government agency obfuscation and half-truths.

NASA is effectively forecasting a return to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) but gives no mention of the brutal cold, crop loss, famine, war and powerful Volcanic eruptions associated with it.

https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
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: 4, Insightful) by dwilson on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:44PM (2 children)

    by dwilson (2599) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:44PM (#859726) Journal

    In August 1972, right in between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 missions, a solar storm occurred sending out dangerous bursts of radiation. On Earth, we're protected by our magnetic field, but out in space, this would have been hazardous for the astronauts.

    Statements like this irritate me. Define hazardous in this context. Dead before they reach the moon? Dead inside thirty days of return to earth? Lifetime risk of cancer from exposure during the mission s doubled, up 0.8% instead of the 0.4% they projected? Something in between?

    I've done a fair bit of work with low-level radiation sources, and the basic safety training we were mandated to receive is the same material they start off the power plant workers with (according to a co-worker who moved on to Ontario and found work in such a plant). When it comes to the boogyman-word "Radioactive", the utter lack of understanding and/or massive overstatement of risk by the general public will never cease to dismay me.

    And occasionally irritate me.

    --
    - D
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday June 25 2019, @10:03PM

    by Pav (114) on Tuesday June 25 2019, @10:03PM (#859881)

    That's because noone knows [nature.com]. Still, cosmonauts have been in space during inclement space weather, to the extent that they could see flashes of light behind closed eyelids. While noone really knows what that did to them exactly, it probably didn't have many health benefits.

  • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:58PM

    by Muad'Dave (1413) on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:58PM (#860506)

    doses from 50 to 2,000 mSv [nasa.gov] (yes, this is a dose, not a dose rate).

    Crews aboard the space station receive an average of 80 mSv for a six-month stay at solar maximum (the time period with the maximum number of sunspots and a maximum solar magnetic field to deflect the particles) and an average of 160 mSv for a six-month stay at solar minimum (the period with the minimum number of sunspots and a minimum solar magnetic field). [nasa.gov]. This is inside the magnetic field of the Earth, so it's not the same as 'outer' space.

    Hard data on Apollo doses [nasa.gov]. Apollo 14 astronauts got 1.14 rad over 9 days (to use the ancient tongue). Also, "Estimated Mars mission (3 years) 1,200 mSv".