4 ms·

>or wait a thousand years and send humans to Mars in a different kind of space ship. Pardon the pun, but why on Earth should we wait 1000 years (or whatever it

by mburns 10y ago

>or wait a thousand years and send humans to Mars in a different kind of space ship. Pardon the pun, but why on Earth should we wait 1000 years (or whatever it actually takes) for something when we don't have to? Our fragile human flesh in a contained atmosphere works well enough and we're roughly capable of doing it now, give or take a couple decades. Then we have 900+ years to improve the containers we use to maintain our preferred atmosphere while waiting for whatever form this futuristic species you describe takes.

sjg007 10y ago
Basically we can't survive space radiation... Even going to Mars.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  We can though. Using today's technology we can easily go to Mars and live in underground habitats and be subject to only a moderate increase in health risks from radiation absorbed during the trip. Said health risks would be less than what a decent number of current Earth-bound professions face, and those people don't even get to go to Mars.
  - rabidrat 10y ago
    > easily What we are currently doing on Mars remotely is absolutely incredible and at the upper limit of our present capabilities. Don't think for a second that having "today's technology" does not still require a herculean effort, if we even have a 5% chance of pulling it off before funding (which would be in the trillions) is cut.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      I was specifically refuting the claim that the radiation problem is a blocker, when in fact it is just a minor nuisance. Storms posed more of a danger to the first ships exploring the new world than radiation will to Mars colonists, and that didn't stop anyone.
      - sjg007 10y ago
        You are mistaken. https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-003.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-003.pdf
        CydeWeys 10y ago
        Do you have a link to a specific page within that report demonstrating your point? I skimmed through it and all I saw is that it says that there are some risks. Obviously I'm not denying that. It doesn't say at all that the risks are so high that we can't do missions with current technology (which provides minimal to no radiation shielding in transit). Mainly it's saying that further study is merited, which I absolutely agree with. I also think we don't need to hold off on going until we achieve perfect mitigation, and I believe most NASA employees would agree with me on that as well.

by mburns 10y ago

sjg007 10y ago

Basically we can't survive space radiation... Even going to Mars.

CydeWeys 10y ago
We can though. Using today's technology we can easily go to Mars and live in underground habitats and be subject to only a moderate increase in health risks from radiation absorbed during the trip. Said health risks would be less than what a decent number of current Earth-bound professions face, and those people don't even get to go to Mars.
- rabidrat 10y ago
  > easily What we are currently doing on Mars remotely is absolutely incredible and at the upper limit of our present capabilities. Don't think for a second that having "today's technology" does not still require a herculean effort, if we even have a 5% chance of pulling it off before funding (which would be in the trillions) is cut.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    I was specifically refuting the claim that the radiation problem is a blocker, when in fact it is just a minor nuisance. Storms posed more of a danger to the first ships exploring the new world than radiation will to Mars colonists, and that didn't stop anyone.
    - sjg007 10y ago
      You are mistaken. https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-003.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-003.pdf
      - CydeWeys 10y ago
        Do you have a link to a specific page within that report demonstrating your point? I skimmed through it and all I saw is that it says that there are some risks. Obviously I'm not denying that. It doesn't say at all that the risks are so high that we can't do missions with current technology (which provides minimal to no radiation shielding in transit). Mainly it's saying that further study is merited, which I absolutely agree with. I also think we don't need to hold off on going until we achieve perfect mitigation, and I believe most NASA employees would agree with me on that as well.