3 ms·

Where did they pull the 1.9 years of flight? The SpaceX plans to go to Mars talk about 80 to 150 days, with 115 days average [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/

Where did they pull the 1.9 years of flight? The SpaceX plans to go to Mars talk about 80 to 150 days, with 115 days average [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program#Colonization_and_terraforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program#Colonizati...

cwillu 3y ago
They're talking more in terms of “if we wanted to maximize the time spent in transit”: “[…] Several studies considered radiation doses during 500- and 1000-days flights, according to NASA plans (Drake et al., 2009). However, there is still no clear answer about optimal flight conditions that would enable the longest mission duration. In this study, we present the net radiation doses from SEP and GCR radiation as an accumulated dose during a spaceflight, dependent on flight duration and launch date for the time period between 1998 and 2006. […] Our simulations show that for solar cycle 23 and aluminum shielding, the mission duration–assuming a 1 Sv mission limit–should not exceed approximately 4 years.” -- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021SW002749 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... Reference Drake et al, 2009: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021SW002749#swe21195-bib-0006 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202...
- credit_guy 3y ago
  I don't get it. Why would they do that, and then "declare Mars unsafe for humans"? It's like saying "you can't finish a Marathon if you start by shooting yourself in the foot". Well, duh?
  - cwillu 3y ago
    That's my point: the headline is utterly misleading as to the content of the paper it's talking about. The paper is talking about travel time, but the blogspam and its title is making an statement about mars itself.

3 ms·

Where did they pull the 1.9 years of flight? The SpaceX plans to go to Mars talk about 80 to 150 days, with 115 days average [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/

by credit_guy 3y ago

cwillu 3y ago
They're talking more in terms of “if we wanted to maximize the time spent in transit”: “[…] Several studies considered radiation doses during 500- and 1000-days flights, according to NASA plans (Drake et al., 2009). However, there is still no clear answer about optimal flight conditions that would enable the longest mission duration. In this study, we present the net radiation doses from SEP and GCR radiation as an accumulated dose during a spaceflight, dependent on flight duration and launch date for the time period between 1998 and 2006. […] Our simulations show that for solar cycle 23 and aluminum shielding, the mission duration–assuming a 1 Sv mission limit–should not exceed approximately 4 years.” -- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021SW002749 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... Reference Drake et al, 2009: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021SW002749#swe21195-bib-0006 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202...
- credit_guy 3y ago
  I don't get it. Why would they do that, and then "declare Mars unsafe for humans"? It's like saying "you can't finish a Marathon if you start by shooting yourself in the foot". Well, duh?
  - cwillu 3y ago
    That's my point: the headline is utterly misleading as to the content of the paper it's talking about. The paper is talking about travel time, but the blogspam and its title is making an statement about mars itself.