XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   Serigo  wrote:   
      
   >On 10/12/2016 11:08 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >> Serigo  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 10/12/2016 7:06 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >>>> Serigo  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2   
   >>>>>>>>>> atmosphere.  Food could be grown.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Not without horrendous effort.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> For some small value of 'horrendous'.   
   >>>   
   >> If you want to be sophisticated, hydrogenated BNNTs.  You can even   
   >> weave spacesuits out of them and get significant shielding.  If you're   
   >> willing to be less so, build with a sandwich made from polyethylene   
   >> between aluminum plates.  Remember, we're talking VEHICLES here, like   
   >> what would be used to explore the surface.  Fixed habitats would   
   >> likely be mostly buried, since that's easiest.   
   >>   
   >   
   >you stated "Don't need to bury it",  now you say you do.   
   >   
      
   You don't read very well, do you?  Have someone explain to you the   
   difference in meaning between "would most likely be" and "must".   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> you are uninformed.  lots of NASA studies out that prove you have to be   
   >>> burried about 20 foot down.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> To get the radiation level to what it is at the surface of the Earth.   
   >> But you don't need to get it that low   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> and stay there 95% of the time   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Bullshit.  Normal Earth surface dose a year is around 3.6 mSv a year.   
   >> A dose of 100 mSv a year is the threshhold at which small but   
   >> noticeable increases in cancer occur.  Current astronaut limits are   
   >> about 5x that (and the assumption that you won't do that for more than   
   >> a couple of years).  With NO shielding the annual dose on the Martian   
   >> surface is about 280 mSv per year.   
   >>   
   >   
   >your number is wrong, try 700 mSv   
   >   
      
   Your number is wrong.  We're talking Mars surface, not open space.   
   Mars surface radiation at peak (non-SPE) solar output is around 30   
   uSv/hr.  Do the math.   
      
   >   
   >...  assuming *no solar flares* dumbass, Solar Particle Event (SPE) the   
   >astronauts should expect one SPE every two months on average   
   >   
      
   Dumbass.  I gave the non-SPE number because that's NORMAL BACKGROUND   
   and you don't know when you're going to get an SPE.  UNSHIELDED Mars   
   surface exposure for the duration of a typical SPE is around 120 mSv   
   or lower.  Vehicle shielding can cut that down to 40 mSv or less.  A   
   habitat can cut it down to, well, pretty much unnoticeable.   
      
   >   
   >no Mars magnetic field to deflect, no atmosphere to attenuate.   
   >   
      
   Except that non-existent atmosphere DOES attenuate, dumbass.   
      
   >   
   >there is a whole lot of research already done on this topic,   
   >   
      
   Yes, there has been.  You should read some of it.   
      
   >   
   >you are a fool for not keeping up and an un funny clown.   
   >   
      
   I'm sorry you're stupid, but I can't fix you.   
      
   >   
   >95% of the time underground, pooping to keep the methane generating to   
   >run your laptop to tell you what to do.   
   >   
      
   Well, they have to find something to keep you busy to prevent you   
   screwing things up.   
      
      
   --   
   "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is   
    only stupid."   
                               -- Heinrich Heine   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)