5 ms·
The main radiation risk happens during the trip. See https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080
by espadrine 8y ago
The main radiation risk happens during the trip.
See https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080 and https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA17601.jpg https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA17601.jpg.
- etaioinshrdlu 8y agoLog scale... You appear to get 6.5x the annual safe limit in 500 days. It would be an unacceptable hazards to be exposed to that much radiation on earth.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lostlogin 8y agoHow do you calculate 6.5x? It might be my inability to read log graphs but is the DOE limit 20mSv and the 500 day dose 350mSv?
- etaioinshrdlu 8y agoYou're right, I was lazy at reading it too, and it acutally is more like 16x.
- arcticfox 8y agoIs that the equivalent of 6.5 years of normal aging-related cancer risk (spread over ~1.35 actual years), or does risk scale non-linearly? If it's a normal +5 bonus years of risk, it seems like something that would be acceptable for such a voyage. But you'd be a bit hard-pressed to find something worth it on Earth, it would have to be something truly spectacular.
- ummonk 8y agoWait, is that all? The safe limit is likely quite conservative, so 5x the annual safe limit in a year doesn't seem like a big deal.
- etaioinshrdlu 8y agoWhether it is a big deal or not, I also misread the graph and it is more like 16x...
- lostlogin 8y agoI find that graph hard to understand. The time component varies between 6 months and goes up to 500 days. Any idea why they didn’t keep them all at 1 year? And shouldn’t the transit to Mars column in the place that the 500 days one occupies? Surely the same dose in 180 days is worse for you than having it spread over 500?