3 ms·
How thick of them would make a safe environment? Maybe the best economic option is to build a huge ship, that could be a captured asteroid, and place it in an
by narag 9y ago
How thick of them would make a safe environment?
Maybe the best economic option is to build a huge ship, that could be a captured asteroid, and place it in an permanent elliptic orbit near Earth's orbit in its perihelion and near Mars' orbit in its aphelion.
- Robotbeat 9y agoThe best economic option is probably just to go really fast and use on-board supplies for solar flare protection. If you get to Mars in 3 months versus 9 months, your radiation dose during transit is just a third. And that also means you may be able to reuse the ship every synod (26 months) instead of every 2 synods. That's the plan for SpaceX's BFR/ITS.
- narag 9y agoIf you get to Mars in 3 months versus 9 months, your radiation dose during transit is just a third. It seems more like a trade-off. A bulkier slower ship could offer better protection even for longer trips. Also you only need to power an elliptic orbiter once.
- Robotbeat 9y agoGetting radiation dose to just a third is incredibly hard with shielding. Cyclers need periodic re-alignment and are so slow that you'd need multiples in order to have one for each window. Also, you still have to catch up to one. Overall, not a fantastic trade.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- valuearb 9y agoRetric outlined the best economic solution. Mainly it's not anything to worry about. You need some small area with heavy shielding to huddle in during solar flares, but the rest of the trip shielding isn't important. Explorers will happily a small increase in their lifetime cancer risk in exchange for visiting new worlds. Eventually we'll have faster transits, and Aldrin Cyclers, and the problem will become even more minute.