True, much can happen in the next few hundred years that might doom mankind. As intelligent as we are there's a selfish recklessness about us that can't be denied.
Goddard was the father of modern rocketry.
Thus, the Artemis Program and beyond.
By hook or by crook, I will see a Moon shot if I'm alive when it happens.
Astronauts will face up to 150 times more radiation once they leave the protection of low-Earth orbit. The "safe shelter" is also only useful in the event of a CME, because we will have ~18 hours or more of advanced warning. However, it will offer no protection against the completely random gamma-ray bursts and cosmic radiation.
www.newscientist.com
At this point in time its a problem that hasn't been totally solved ..yet the Artemis mission is a go. Beyond Mars is Titan a moon with a thick atmosphere of nitrogen along with Saturn’s magnetosphere both provide shelter from dangerous radiation.Astronauts will face up to 150 times more radiation once they leave the protection of low-Earth orbit. The "safe shelter" is also only useful in the event of a CME, because we will have ~18 hours or more of advanced warning. However, it will offer no protection against the completely random gamma-ray bursts and cosmic radiation.
Prudue University, MIT, and the University of Washington are working on possible solutions, but neither have anything functional yet. I like the University of Washington's approach, using a plasma "bubble" to generate an electromagnetic shield. Apparently NASA likes it well enough to look into it further.
Plasma bubble could protect astronauts on Mars trip
If the idea proves viable, it would mean a lightweight alternative to the thick metal panels needed to protect against radiation on long-haul space flights
The radiation protection needs to extend to the entire spacecraft. Making just part of the spacecraft radiation proof won't cut it.
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Then we are pretty much taking the same risks that we took between 1969 and 1972. Which means that astronauts are going to die due to radiation, and we're okay with that reality now.
All true, 7 years to Jupiter at about 35,000 mph as it stands now ..the distances in space are mind blowing.
www.king5.com
Good article, and accurate. Which is unusual for the media.All true, 7 years to Jupiter at about 35,000 mph as it stands now ..the distances in space are mind blowing.
As far as radiation is concerned, the problem has not been totally solved. The moon base depiction I posted shows the dirt mound, its function will
protect astronauts from most of the dangerous radiation, however, when outside of the mound astronauts won't be completely protected as it stands now.
Some context - Astronauts would get 200 to 1,000 times more radiation on the moon than what we experience on Earth — or five to 10 times more than passengers on a trans-Atlantic airline flight. Radiation levels should be pretty much the same all over the moon, except for near the walls of deep craters and that's not where the
base will be.
Its a work in progress ..keep in mind the program was initially launched in 2017 by the Trump Administration with the goal of private companies building a lunar economy.
Need I say more.
Moon has hazardous radiation levels, first full measurements show
The findings are not unexpected, but it means lunar bases will need to be built with extra protection.
| Object | Distance (km) | Days | Hours | Minutes | Seconds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moon | 384,400 | 0 | 3 | 28 | 41.6 |
| Mars | 56,005,171 | 1 | 17 | 59 | 1.5 |
| Jupiter | 587,410,560 | 5 | 15 | 58 | 6.3 |
| Saturn | 1,374,933,063 | 8 | 16 | 1 | 16.9 |
As we have already demonstrated in Alaska, we do not need to wait for an ice-free Arctic to exploit its resources. There is also no one staking any claims in the Arctic. Those borders were decided centuries ago.
The moon is not a good resource. The only resource the moon has that Earth does not is Helium-3. What makes the moon important is future missions to other planets. It is much easier to ship Helium-3 into space from the moon than to ship any resource from Earth into space. Which would make the moon a better choice for refueling spacecraft once spacecraft leave Earth's gravity well.
The dangers of radiation would only become less significant if you are eager to intentionally put astronauts to death. We know China and Russia care nothing for human life. It remains to be seen whether Japan or India will have the same disregard for human life. Although, I suspect the Japanese are much more interested in unmanned missions than any manned-mission.As it stands now there are multiple Countries all racing to the moon ..the US, China, Russia, India and Japan are just a few. The Magna Carta of the Moon was established when Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin planted the US flag into the Lunar surface in 1969 ..in 2019 China staked its claim on the moon with its flag.
When looking at the Artemis program from this perspective it makes some sense that the dangers of radiation could become less significant.
Actually, they all speak of past space exploration. They are all old technology and unacceptably slow. They are like driving a Ford Model-T on a teaspoon of gasoline, when we really need a Bugatti Chiron with a full tank of gasoline.
Comparing Alaska to the Arctic regions doesn't make sense ..latitudes matter as to the cold. Borders in the Arctic regions are not written in stone, you would do well to cite some of
No they don,t ..Nuclear-powered thermal rockets are more effective than chemical thermal rockets, primarily because they can use low-molecular-mass propellant such as hydrogen.
en.wikipedia.org
Launched by the Trump Administration, the Artemis Program was to to develop a Lunar economy which may include future exploitation of its resources sometime in the future.
en.wikipedia.org
What a BS statement, has no business in a science thread, please take your hateful political garbage somewhere else.