So going to the moon was another democrat lie apparently. 'Invisible' space radiation is one of the biggest challenges of a manned mission to Mars, NASA scientists say

[Mike O'Brien]

When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they’ll be up against an invisible
adversary – space radiation.

While much is known about the consequences of radiation here on
Earth, the conditions beyond our home planet create a different
set of challenges, so relying on the same protective methods
could ultimately make exposure worse.

NASA scientists are now working to determine just how this
radiation affects the human body, and develop ways to protect
against the violent ‘nuclear collisions’ that occur as high-
energy particles slam into shielding and human tissue.

‘One of our biggest challenges on a mission to Mars is
protecting astronauts from radiation,’ said NASA Space Radiation
Element Scientist Lisa Simonsen, PhD.

‘You can’t see it; you can’t feel it. You don’t know you’re
getting bombarded by radiation.’

According to the researchers with NASA’s Human Research Program
(HRP), space radiation is very different from that experienced
on Earth.

While using a heavy, lead blanket to protect against X-rays at
the dentist, for example, may be effective on Earth, heavy
materials can worsen the effects of space radiation.

This is because space is home to particle radiation, as opposed
to electromagnetic radiation.

‘In space, there is particle radiation, which is basically
everything on the periodic table, hydrogen all the way up
through nickel and uranium, moving near the speed of light, said
NASA Research Physcist Tony Slaba, PhD.

‘NASA doesn’t want to use heavy materials like led for shielding
spacecraft because the incoming space radiation will suffer many
nuclear collisions with the shielding, leading to the production
of additional secondary radiation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4919146/NASA-
investigates-effects-invisible-space-radiation.html

[Bast]

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they’ll be up against an invisible
adversary – space radiation.
While much is known about the consequences of radiation here on
Earth, the conditions beyond our home planet create a different
set of challenges, so relying on the same protective methods
could ultimately make exposure worse.
NASA scientists are now working to determine just how this
radiation affects the human body, and develop ways to protect
against the violent ‘nuclear collisions’ that occur as high-
energy particles slam into shielding and human tissue.
‘One of our biggest challenges on a mission to Mars is
protecting astronauts from radiation,’ said NASA Space Radiation
Element Scientist Lisa Simonsen, PhD.
‘You can’t see it; you can’t feel it. You don’t know you’re
getting bombarded by radiation.’
According to the researchers with NASA’s Human Research Program
(HRP), space radiation is very different from that experienced
on Earth.
While using a heavy, lead blanket to protect against X-rays at
the dentist, for example, may be effective on Earth, heavy
materials can worsen the effects of space radiation.
This is because space is home to particle radiation, as opposed
to electromagnetic radiation.
‘In space, there is particle radiation, which is basically
everything on the periodic table, hydrogen all the way up
through nickel and uranium, moving near the speed of light, said
NASA Research Physcist Tony Slaba, PhD.
‘NASA doesn’t want to use heavy materials like led for shielding
spacecraft because the incoming space radiation will suffer many
nuclear collisions with the shielding, leading to the production
of additional secondary radiation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4919146/NASA-
investigates-effects-invisible-space-radiation.html

Why do you think they never even pretend to send astronauts higher thn 200
miles above the earth anymore.
Still in the upper atmoshere, but below the Van Allen belts.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they’ll be up against an invisible
adversary – space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple of
weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.

Sylvia.

[Bast]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they'll be up against an invisible
adversary - space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple of
weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.
Sylvia.

Radiation causes damage to living cells at any level, the only cummulative
part is the degree of damage.
Which is why we are only seeing deaths and mutations from Chernobyl decades
after the exposures, and the same are now starting to show up in Fukushima
and the rest of Japan.
It is only now being discovered that airline employees like pilots and
stewardesses, who flew in jets for years at high altitudes, then have far
higher cancer risk in later life than people who were only flying in
propeller driven planes that flew far lower.

NASA has known the risks of even short term radiation exposure since the
early 1960's, when they were able to get spacecraft launched to measure it.
And why they had to build the movie sets on earth to film all those moon
walks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:55:24 -0400, the following appeared

Post by Bast

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they'll be up against an invisible
adversary - space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple of
weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.

Radiation causes damage to living cells at any level, the only cummulative
part is the degree of damage.

Pretty much correct, although below some level the effects
are essentially unmeasurable. We're exposed to radiation
constantly.

Post by Bast
Which is why we are only seeing deaths and mutations from Chernobyl decades
after the exposures, and the same are now starting to show up in Fukushima
and the rest of Japan.

Ummm... No, that's not why. Unless you think that those
afflicted are still being exposed, there's no link to
"cumulative exposure".

Post by Bast
It is only now being discovered that airline employees like pilots and
stewardesses, who flew in jets for years at high altitudes, then have far
higher cancer risk in later life than people who were only flying in
propeller driven planes that flew far lower.

That's been known for quite a while, and suspected for
decades. But since it's so deadly, I guess it's a miracle
that those working on the ISS haven't turned green (or
should that be "started to glow blue"?) and died...

Post by Bast
NASA has known the risks of even short term radiation exposure since the
early 1960's, when they were able to get spacecraft launched to measure it.

Yes, and that's why every spacecraft only launches when the
risk of increased radiation is minimal (no major solar
activity), and why all spacecraft have radiation shielding,
little as it is, incorporated in the structure. See:

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Post by Bast
And why they had to build the movie sets on earth to film all those moon
walks.

Oh, my, yet another idiotic conspiracy theorist. One would
think that all the evidence presented over the past 50 years
would convince them they're wrong, but some idiocies are
apparently too firmly established to remove without the use
of dynamite.

[Bruce S]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:55:24 -0400, the following appeared

Post by Bast

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they'll be up against an invisible
adversary - space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple of
weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.

Radiation causes damage to living cells at any level, the only cummulative
part is the degree of damage.

Pretty much correct, although below some level the effects
are essentially unmeasurable. We're exposed to radiation
constantly.

Post by Bast
Which is why we are only seeing deaths and mutations from Chernobyl decades
after the exposures, and the same are now starting to show up in Fukushima
and the rest of Japan.

Ummm... No, that's not why. Unless you think that those
afflicted are still being exposed, there's no link to
"cumulative exposure".

Post by Bast
It is only now being discovered that airline employees like pilots and
stewardesses, who flew in jets for years at high altitudes, then have far
higher cancer risk in later life than people who were only flying in
propeller driven planes that flew far lower.

That's been known for quite a while, and suspected for
decades. But since it's so deadly, I guess it's a miracle
that those working on the ISS haven't turned green (or
should that be "started to glow blue"?) and died...

Post by Bast
NASA has known the risks of even short term radiation exposure since the
early 1960's, when they were able to get spacecraft launched to measure it.

Yes, and that's why every spacecraft only launches when the
risk of increased radiation is minimal (no major solar
activity), and why all spacecraft have radiation shielding,
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Post by Bast
And why they had to build the movie sets on earth to film all those moon
walks.

Oh, my, yet another idiotic conspiracy theorist. One would
think that all the evidence presented over the past 50 years
would convince them they're wrong, but some idiocies are
apparently too firmly established to remove without the use
of dynamite.

See, Bob gets it. I would add that they can be removed with sufficient
surgery and medication as well, in case that isn't obvious.

[Bruce S]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they’ll be up against an invisible
adversary – space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple of
weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.

Pfft. Facts. You're not going to get far in a conversation like this
one if that's all you have.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Bruce S

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they’ll be up against an invisible
adversary – space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple
of weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.

Pfft. Facts. You're not going to get far in a conversation like this
one if that's all you have.

Well probably not, but if I convince even one nutter over the course of
a life time, it'll have been worthwhile.

OK, that's not true - it will have been an absurd waste of my time.

Oh well.

Sylvia.

[Bruce S]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Bruce S

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they’ll be up against an invisible
adversary – space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple
of weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.

Pfft. Facts. You're not going to get far in a conversation like this
one if that's all you have.

Well probably not, but if I convince even one nutter over the course of
a life time, it'll have been worthwhile.
OK, that's not true - it will have been an absurd waste of my time.
Oh well.

That's also a very big "if". I talk with nutters, but don't expect to
convince them. I just do it for the entertainment value.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:03:32 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bruce S <***@hotmail.com>:

[Groups trimmed]

Post by Bruce S

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Bruce S

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Mike O'Brien
When astronauts one day step foot on the red planet for long-
term exploratory missions, they’ll be up against an invisible
adversary – space radiation.

Which is cumulative over time. The longest moon mission was a couple
of weeks. The shortest credible mars mission is about a year and a half.

Pfft. Facts. You're not going to get far in a conversation like this
one if that's all you have.

Well probably not, but if I convince even one nutter over the course of
a life time, it'll have been worthwhile.
OK, that's not true - it will have been an absurd waste of my time.
Oh well.

That's also a very big "if". I talk with nutters, but don't expect to
convince them. I just do it for the entertainment value.

Ditto.