Jump to content



Photo

Astronauts face radiation threat on long Mars trip

usa nasa standards cancer risk mars flight volunteers millisieverts fast trip solar flares

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,203 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 31 May 2013 - 22:42

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Astronauts traveling to and from Mars would be bombarded with as much radiation as they'd get from a full-body CT scan about once a week for a year, researchers reported Thursday.

That dose would, in some cases, exceed NASA's standards and is enough to raise an astronaut's cancer risk by 3 percent.

As plans for deep space exploration ramp up, radiation is a big concern — from high-energy galactic cosmic rays spewed by distant supernova explosions to sporadic bursts of charged particles hurled by the sun. Earth's magnetic field helps to deflect much of that harmful radiation.

NASA aims to send a crew to orbit the red planet by the mid-2030s. Private outfits like Inspiration Mars — backed by NASA engineer-turned-space tourist Dennis Tito — are seeking volunteers for a Mars flight.

There have been previous efforts to gauge the radiation risk for future Mars travelers, but the best estimate is coming from NASA's Curiosity mission. Tucked inside the rover when it launched in 2011 was a radiation sensor that took readings during the 8 1/2-month cruise to Mars.

From those figures, scientists calculated a spacefarer's radiation exposure for a quicker six-month voyage in a similarly shielded spacecraft. Roundtrip: about 662 millisieverts. That's a sizable chunk of an astronaut's career cap of 1,000 millisieverts which many international space agencies use to limit the accumulated radiation dosage in space.

NASA's threshold depends on age and gender. The career dose limit for 30-to-60-year-old male astronauts who never smoked ranges from 800 to 1,200 millisieverts. For female astronauts, the limit ranges from 600 to 1,000 millisieverts.

The radiation exposure from a Mars journey is similar to getting a full-body CT scan every five or six days, said lead researcher Cary Zeitlin of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo.

The estimate is just for zipping there and back; it doesn't include time spent on the Martian surface, which would add to an astronaut's exposure. How much more would depend on length of stay and available shelter.

"You'd like the radiation exposure to be lower, but it is what it is," said Dr. Norm Thagard, the first American to fly on the Russian space station Mir, who had no role in the research. "Given the importance of such a mission, the mission should be done."

The analysis appears in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The amount of radiation likely won't change unless there's a rocket engine developed that can speed up the interplanetary ride, researchers said.

"You want to get there as quickly as possible" to reduce radiation exposure, said Don Hassler, scientist in charge of the radiation instrument aboard Curiosity.

Radiation on a Mars trek would be higher than what crew members cocooned inside the International Space Station typically face — about 200 millisieverts per year. By contrast, people on Earth are typically exposed to about 3 millisieverts a year.

Curiosity flew to Mars during a period of low to moderate solar activity. A manned mission that launches during a solar flare or storm would encounter more radiation.

NASA engineers are testing propulsion systems and researching ways to reduce radiation exposure on a Mars flight. Among the possibilities: Have astronauts wear a deployable shield resembling a heavy winter coat or have them hunker down in a storm shelter aboard the spacecraft during periods of high solar activity.

"Before we can send astronauts there, we need to understand the environments and hazards that they would face" said Chris Moore, deputy director of advanced exploration systems at NASA headquarters.

Now, cancer-related risk estimates are "no more than a rough guesstimate," David Brenner, an expert on radiation-induced cancer at Columbia University.

more


#2 geertd

geertd

    Neowinian

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 31 May 2013 - 23:52

they have to build better shielding http://www.nasa.gov/...ymposium_r1.pdf
i believe doc posted something about it

and faster space ships
VASIMR comes to mind

#3 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,203 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 31 May 2013 - 23:53

^ Metal shielding doesn't help that much.

#4 Praetor

Praetor

    ASCii / ANSi Designer

  • 3,344 posts
  • Joined: 05-June 02
  • Location: Lisbon
  • OS: Windows Eight dot One dot One 1!one

Posted 31 May 2013 - 23:57

cancer probability increased to only 3%? i think they're underestimating...

#5 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,203 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 01 June 2013 - 00:00

^ Ya think ?

The estimate is just for zipping there and back; it doesn't include time spent on the Martian surface, which would add to an astronaut's exposure.

Radiation on a Mars trek would be higher than what crew members cocooned inside the International Space Station typically face — about 200 millisieverts per year. By contrast, people on Earth are typically exposed to about 3 millisieverts a year.



#6 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,572 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 01 June 2013 - 01:16

^ Metal shielding doesn't help that much.


The most dangerous flux un this was protons, a chargef particle that is susceptible to the ship having an artificial magnetosphere. NASA signed a deal recently with one of the most advanced high temperature superconducting magnet manufacturers to design, and possibly make, a prototype.

Speed can be handled by a VASIMR or other plasma drive (VASIMR heading to ISS for testing next year), or the proposed FPR fusion drive being tested at NASA this summer. Some of these would cut the trim to ~3 months.

#7 Crisp

Crisp

    To infinity and beyond

  • 5,527 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 10
  • Location: 127.0.0.1

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:11

Surely testing VASIMR to the ISS isn't going to show it's justice as it's a short distance compared. Wouldn't they be better off using the technology with another deep space satellite, like device.

I guess the technology is there, it's just cost like most things holding back.

Living on Mars still can't be ruled out just because of this, after all, there's no stopping living under the surface.
Just send a space adapted caterpillar digger :shifty:

#8 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:14

I feel they'll solve the problem by 2030. If not, we don't deserve to go.

#9 redvamp128

redvamp128

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,930 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 01

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:22

I think they ought to send a camera as well as some plants first to see if they can start a more suitable atmosphere.

I vote kudzu and Cactus first.

Maybe also send Roaches as well... they say they can live through a nuclear war.

I mean first let us see if we can safely get life to and back from Mars first.

#10 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,572 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 01 June 2013 - 04:01

Surely testing VASIMR to the ISS isn't going to show it's justice as it's a short distance compared. Wouldn't they be better off using the technology with another deep space satellite, like device.


A 200kw testbed just to space qualify it. Other such testbeds sill be the NOFBX monopropellant and its engine, various sensors & cameras etc. Done all the time.

I guess the technology is there, it's just cost like most things holding back.

Living on Mars still can't be ruled out just because of this, after all, there's no stopping living under the surface.

Just send a space adapted caterpillar digger :shifty:


There are several companies working on aspects of the problem, including SpaceX whose mysterious "MCT" (part of its Mars architecture) should be announced within a year. They 're already looking at NASA's Pad 39A (Apollo / shuttle) as a place to launch their super-heavy launcher(s) - able to loft 150-200 tons. Huge SOB. Also prepping to announce a private spaceport in Brownsville, TX, along with a new factory there for their big rockets. Mr. Musk wants to go to Mars.

#11 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,203 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 01 June 2013 - 13:32

Living on Mars still can't be ruled out just because of this, after all, there's no stopping living under the surface.
Just send a space adapted caterpillar digger :shifty:


Works for the Martians. ;)