
Mars is safe from radiation – but the trip there isn't - Libertatea
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22520-mars-is-safe-from-radiation--but-the-trip-there-isnt.html?cmpid=RSS%7CNSNS%7C2012-GLOBAL%7Conline-news
======
isharabash
I opened that page and had 3 ads flying around, one that literally blocked the
entire screen. what?

~~~
hnriot
I amazed that an hn reader isn't using ABP, the web is a much better place
thanks to AbBlock

------
rflrob
"NASA estimates that a return human mission to Mars would take three years.
During that time astronauts might receive more than seven times the radiation
dose they get during six months on the ISS."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding (I.e. the dose per unit time is 7 times greater),
but the way this is phrased, it sounds like the total dose, which isn't too
surprising, because 3 years is pretty close to 7 times 6 months.

~~~
iwwr
There must be a mistake there somewhere. In a Mars-direct style of mission
(the current nasa reference mission), a crew would spend 6 months in space
each way and 18 months on the surface.

<http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/faq>

The danger of radiation is seriously overstated. Technically there is not much
missing except a political will to go ahead with it.

------
RyanMcGreal
Notwithstanding NASA's policy on lifetime astronaut exposure to radiation, if
they can reduce exposure on a trip to Mars below a lethal dose, I don't think
they'd have a problem finding people who were willing to sign a waiver on that
policy.

~~~
nicholassmith
I think as it stands there's probably people who'd either sign it over and
take the chance on a there-and-back trip and potentially get cancer, or view
it as a one way proposition. Not sure whether the ethics of sending people to
their potential doom would fly mind.

~~~
moistgorilla
Don't we already do that when people get launched into space? If someone wants
to do it they should be allowed to as long as the benefits outweigh the risks
which I do not currently believe they do.

~~~
nicholassmith
Kind of, there's significant risks involved in shooting someone into space but
not the risk of a long lingering death from radiation exposure. I think that's
where the ethics committees get a bit hesitant.

I fully understand someone wanting to do it despite the risks, if its their
choice then they've made their decision.

------
mkr-hn
[http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/2012_phaseII_fellow...](http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/2012_phaseII_fellows_westover.html)

------
loceng
Is this the big news from yesterday then?

~~~
sp332
I don't think so, it mentions the weather station and the radiation monitor
being the instruments involved here, but the "big news" is from a sample
collector.

------
kalms
Didn't we already solve this?

[http://www.universetoday.com/20671/ion-shield-for-
interplane...](http://www.universetoday.com/20671/ion-shield-for-
interplanetary-spaceships-now-a-reality/)

~~~
stcredzero
No, we have ideas on how to do this. There will be a lot of engineering and
research before it's real and reliable.

------
ranman
Relevant: <http://xkcd.com/radiation/>

