Mars is safe from radiation – but the trip there isn't | Hacker News Reader

Mars is safe from radiation – but the trip there isn't

newscientist.com

33 pointsLibertatea17 comments

I opened that page and had 3 ads flying around, one that literally blocked the entire screen. what?

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Remember that these people will get rigorous medical screenings throughout their lives following the mission. Even if they do develop cancer later on, it would be found early enough to be treatable in most cases. With the added screenings, an astronaut may benefit from a lower mortality altogether (than a normal person exposed to background radiation back on earth).

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.

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.

There are always millions of people, who are going to die from cancer anyway. I bet some of them are in good shape and would be interested.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/2012_phaseII_fellow...

Is this the big news from yesterday then?

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.

Didn't we already solve this?

http://www.universetoday.com/20671/ion-shield-for-interplane...

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

I remember that research and also wonder what happened to it - can anyone give us an update?

Relevant: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com