I agree we should do as much as possible on Mars due to the higher in transit exposure. Geographic siting is also important, but that should be constrained by going to valuable research sites and safe landing. It takes about three feet of rock to match the protection at 30,000 ft (4.3 PSIG). I thank that is reasonable for sandbags or similar insitu methods. Sand and dust typically has a porosity of 50 to 20 % so the height would have to be increased compared to rock. Using a slurry with water and allowing it to freeze might make a shield that is both more stable and more effective due to a huge increase in H content. Airline pilots also don't work continuously in a high radiation environment either, but do have substantial lifetime cosmic ray exposure. I think this calls into question those super high risk estimates and claims cosmic rays are fundamentally a different type of radiation.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to re: For once we all seem to agree...
Good Points
The whole thread (47 posts)
- Mars Society
- Put on a canvas suit and a plastic trashcan on your head, and pretend Canada is Mars
- You're also free to join the anti-Belgium society.....
- re: Mars Society
- It's Definately Frowned On But Not Taboo
- "Frowned on" - Oh yeah, and that explains the attacks
- re: "Frowned on" - Oh yeah, and that explains the attacks
- Thanks, Mark
- "Frowned on" - Oh yeah, and that explains the attacks
- Good question.