3 ms·

The end is very funny. Mars trip costs 1200 mSv, NASA cap is 1000. Should we just send old men to Mars? Oops, they dropped the cap to 600, we need this tech now

The end is very funny. Mars trip costs 1200 mSv, NASA cap is 1000. Should we just send old men to Mars? Oops, they dropped the cap to 600, we need this tech now.

grapescheesee 3y ago
What is the non governement standard/target going to be set at? Do private companies need to adhere to the 'new' NASA limit?
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Regulations will appear. There are already regulations about radiation exposure that will be immediately extended into space travel if no regulatory body acts quickly enough. A short search gave me this number, apparently for the US: > 20 mSv a year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years with no single year >50 mSv This basically prohibits paid-for space labor.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  Surely in such unusual circumstances any limits must be set as part of a cost benefit analysis from the point of view of the person concerned. One person might be rationally willing to risk higher exposure in the pursuit of knowledge.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> Mars trip costs 1200 mSv, NASA cap is 1000 The NASA cap is a specific lifetime radiation dose; the Mars trip cost is an estimate of some kind, but they don't specify the duration of the mission. Is 1200 mSv the estimate for the outbound journey, or for both legs, or for both legs plus a 1-year stay on a Mars base? I'm 68, and I've already had cancer; I probably match the "old man" criterion. But I won't be volunteering to travel through a hostile environment, to visit - a hostile environment. For pity's sake, use robots.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  > use robots. Why not use people who are willing to take the risk?
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    It's much more difficult and expensive to get a human encased in a robot to Mars, than to just get the robot there, without the human. The attitude of the human is largely irrelevant (although if you are going to send a human, it seems advisable to not send a suicidal nutter).
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      There’s a difference between a suicidal nutter and someone who wants to do it because they’re thrill seeking and to make the history books as the first person on mars. Also, there’s a huge qualitative difference between a human on Mars and a robot on Mars in terms of what it means for humans back on Earth. It’s an achievement people will take pride in, can help unify people, & inspires the imagination of the next generation in a way that robots won’t.
krunck 3y ago
I thought 1000mSv seemed low. I recently had a lung perfusion scan where I inhaled a saline vapor with technetium in it and I was the x-ray source for the imaging. When I got home I measured 43mSv/hr. I must be pretty close to the NASA limit. Too bad I'm not an astronaut though. Would having a medical scan cause an astronaut to have a reduced usable lifetime?

The end is very funny. Mars trip costs 1200 mSv, NASA cap is 1000. Should we just send old men to Mars? Oops, they dropped the cap to 600, we need this tech now.

grapescheesee 3y ago

What is the non governement standard/target going to be set at? Do private companies need to adhere to the 'new' NASA limit?

marcosdumay 3y ago
Regulations will appear. There are already regulations about radiation exposure that will be immediately extended into space travel if no regulatory body acts quickly enough. A short search gave me this number, apparently for the US: > 20 mSv a year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years with no single year >50 mSv This basically prohibits paid-for space labor.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
Surely in such unusual circumstances any limits must be set as part of a cost benefit analysis from the point of view of the person concerned. One person might be rationally willing to risk higher exposure in the pursuit of knowledge.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> Mars trip costs 1200 mSv, NASA cap is 1000 The NASA cap is a specific lifetime radiation dose; the Mars trip cost is an estimate of some kind, but they don't specify the duration of the mission. Is 1200 mSv the estimate for the outbound journey, or for both legs, or for both legs plus a 1-year stay on a Mars base? I'm 68, and I've already had cancer; I probably match the "old man" criterion. But I won't be volunteering to travel through a hostile environment, to visit - a hostile environment. For pity's sake, use robots.

kwhitefoot 3y ago
> use robots. Why not use people who are willing to take the risk?
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  It's much more difficult and expensive to get a human encased in a robot to Mars, than to just get the robot there, without the human. The attitude of the human is largely irrelevant (although if you are going to send a human, it seems advisable to not send a suicidal nutter).
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    There’s a difference between a suicidal nutter and someone who wants to do it because they’re thrill seeking and to make the history books as the first person on mars. Also, there’s a huge qualitative difference between a human on Mars and a robot on Mars in terms of what it means for humans back on Earth. It’s an achievement people will take pride in, can help unify people, & inspires the imagination of the next generation in a way that robots won’t.

krunck 3y ago

I thought 1000mSv seemed low. I recently had a lung perfusion scan where I inhaled a saline vapor with technetium in it and I was the x-ray source for the imaging. When I got home I measured 43mSv/hr. I must be pretty close to the NASA limit. Too bad I'm not an astronaut though. Would having a medical scan cause an astronaut to have a reduced usable lifetime?