SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the this-is-your-brain-on-cosmic-rays... dept.
As NASA prepares for the first manned spaceflight to Mars, questions have surfaced concerning the potential for increased risks associated with exposure to the spectrum of highly energetic nuclei that comprise galactic cosmic rays. Animal models have revealed an unexpected sensitivity of mature neurons in the brain to charged particles found in space. Astronaut autonomy during long-term space travel is particularly critical as is the need to properly manage planned and unanticipated events, activities that could be compromised by accumulating particle traversals through the brain.
Using mice subjected to space-relevant fluences of charged particles, we show significant cortical- and hippocampal-based performance decrements 6 weeks after acute exposure. Animals manifesting cognitive decrements exhibited marked and persistent radiation-induced reductions in dendritic complexity and spine density along medial prefrontal cortical neurons known to mediate neurotransmission specifically interrogated by our behavioral tasks.
This was stated a little more readably at ScienceDaily:
What happens to an astronaut's brain during a mission to Mars? Nothing good. It's besieged by destructive particles that can forever impair cognition, according to a radiation oncology study. Exposure to highly energetic charged particles -- much like those found in the galactic cosmic rays that bombard astronauts during extended spaceflights -- cause significant damage to the central nervous system, resulting in cognitive impairments.
[Related]: Space Radiation On the Long Trip To Mars Could Make Astronauts Dumber
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 04 2015, @12:33PM
That's why this whole mission-to-Mars thing is ridiculous. We need to be concentrating on closer projects like the ones you listed. Once we have asteroid and Moon mining operations, we can build things we need in space (or Moon's much shallower gravity well), and it won't cost much in fuel. It'd be even better if we built a space elevator on the Moon (where it'd be pretty easy due to the low gravity), as that wouldn't require fuel at all, just energy which we can get from photovoltaics as sunlight is abundant on the Moon since there's no atmosphere. We should also be building habitats on the Moon, quite possibly underground as there's evidence of giant underground lava tubes there which would be perfect for this.
Why there's such a push to skip all this and go straight to Mars, I have no idea.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ryuugami on Monday May 04 2015, @12:49PM
Why there's such a push to skip all this and go straight to Mars, I have no idea.
Because "we went to the Moon 50 years ago", so it ain't glamorous enough for a publicity stunt :/
What ever happened to that asteroid mining company, anyway?
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 04 2015, @01:40PM
Because "we went to the Moon 50 years ago", so it ain't glamorous enough for a publicity stunt :/
Good point.
But it's annoying: the Moon is close, and we could do a lot of interesting projects there without worrying about long-term affects of cosmic radiation on peoples' brains. Even better, we could open it up to tourism; how many billionaires wouldn't want a ride to the Moon?
What ever happened to that asteroid mining company, anyway?
That one that group of billionaires was working on? I'm not sure, but that wasn't very long ago, so it's probably still in the works.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 04 2015, @09:14PM
IMO, the future lies 'up and out there'.
And I dispute the wisdom of waiting until we are 'backed into a corner' to start working on sustainability off Earth. OMG!!11!! The MONEY!!
Yeah right, and it will be miraculously cheap 50-100 years from now? Hah! Well documented history shows that reality proves different.
Every time that 'put it off, it costs money' decision is made(almost always-we are still burning petroleum for example!), it always hurts bad, and is half-assed done in a mad rush, and is super-expensive.
If we had spent the trillions of dollars on NASA/space that we have spent on 'the war on drugs' and the two recent decade long wars, there is no telling where we could go, and stay 'out there' by now. It really disgusts me to think about that.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 04 2015, @09:17PM
Did you even read my post? I'm advocating asteroid mining, lunar mining, and lunar exploration and settlement. How is that not "up and out there"?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 04 2015, @09:35PM
Uhmm...I was not disputing any of your propsals. I agree.
I just questioned specifically the viability of a space elevator on our moon.
Or did you miss the last sentence of my reply, as in "...sounds good to me." ?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 04 2015, @09:51PM
Sorry to double-reply, but I confused some of my comments earlier.
Ignore the part about missing my last sentence. (that was in another comment) sorry about that. :-)
The misunderstanding is regretable, but I really was not meaning to seem to disagree or argue.
That was an attempt to throw in my two cents along with yours. I ended up going off in a rant about all the 'science' budget cuts/stagnation the past several decades.
My apologies for the confusion and chaos, I meant to be agreeing with you.
I'm an old NASA brat, and 'space stuff' has been one of my lifelong interests, and after close to six decades, I still get excited about the subject.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:56PM
Unless my perception of space elevators is incorrect, our moon might not be a good candidate for one.
The way I understand it, a moon/planet needs to rotate/spin on it's axis for a space elevator.
Other than that, it all sounded good to me. :-)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 04 2015, @09:26PM
Unless my perception of space elevators is incorrect, our moon might not be a good candidate for one.
The way I understand it, a moon/planet needs to rotate/spin on it's axis for a space elevator.
Your perception of the Moon is incorrect. It does rotate on an axis. It also happens to be tidally locked to the Earth so you always see the same side of it. That doesn't mean it isn't rotating. From your perspective, it seems to not be moving. However, if you were standing on the Moon (and not at one of the poles), you would notice that the Sun is only visible at some times, and not at others, and these times are not fixed to the position of the Earth; this is because it's rotating as it orbits the Earth.
You do have a good point though: if some space body were not rotating at all, you couldn't have a space elevator, because it relies on having a counterweight in geosynchronous orbit. (Or would it be called "lunasynchronous" on the Moon?)
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday May 04 2015, @09:39PM
Okay, I thought that Luna did not spin on it's, but just orbited the Earth showing the same hemisphere to us always.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Monday May 04 2015, @10:24PM
Okay, I thought that Luna did not spin on it's, but just orbited the Earth showing the same hemisphere to us always.
So think about that for a moment, something that orbits another body - yet always has the same side facing it. How could that object NOT be spinning on its own axis? :)
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:08PM
Yes, I see it now.
I got myself trapped into thinking soley from a 'bound on earth' perspective.
Yes, I am just another earth-bound misfit... (apologies to Pink Floyd))
BTW, thanks for the reply and correction. :-)
I would much rather be correct in science discussions, than thinking I am 'right'.
(Score: 2) by Ryuugami on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:43AM
orbited the Earth showing the same hemisphere to us always
Yes, but that is because the rotation and revolution are synchronized (the Wikipedia article on tidal locking [wikipedia.org] has some illustrations).
An experiment:
- Take your cellphone, turn the camera towards a wall, then spin around with the cellphone in your hand while keeping the camera pointed at the same wall. From your point of view, it will seem like the phone made one full rotation, but the camera is fixed on a single wall - the phone didn't rotate around it's own axis.
- Next, keep the camera pointed away from you while you spin around, you will always see the same side, so it will seem stationary to you. If you look at the video, though, you will see it made the full circle - the phone rotated around it's own axis.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:57AM
LOL! I love the explaination, even though I don't(never have) owned a cell phone. (moot point about cell phone--I understood it)
Thanks, because I was still trying to wrap my head around it. Now it's so obvious. D'oh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @03:00PM
Since "geosynchonous" is derived from the Greek word for earth (geos), not the latin one (terra), I'd also expect the corresponding orbit on the moon to be named after the Greek word (selene), not the Latin word (luna).
Thus I'd expect the orbit to be called "selenosynchronous".