Think of surrounding a space that can accommodate a crew of six with 5 cm of lead shielding. At just over 11 g/cm^3 we have for a 3x3 meter cube a mass of 30.6 tons. You can play with the geometry but the weight penalty is huge. I have not seen any proposed designs that even discuss this issue.
The ship they are in can be designed to be oriented in one way or another... there is no need for 360 degree protection... just having the front compartment with shielding in the direction of the sun and perhaps even altering the air in the crew compartments behind the front compartment they are sheltering by filling them with Ozone to absorb the radiation would be fairly straight forward.
Having nuclear powered engines would require some shielding anyway.
It was hard to maintain the Lander leveled even ..
What do you mean?
the lander had manouvering rockets... stabilising its flight should be no problem.
Garry NASA did not continue to fake the moon landing because they knew it was a high risk ,that they could be caught or someone will talk.. Russia did not faked moon landing because they have no holywood expertise in cinematography ,and because they had a real program and had no reason to start faking moon landings. I Could not have done it either.. it will be an insult for the thousands of engineers who worked in the space program..but USA is USA.. they care nothing about principles or morals.
So why did the Soviets not call Americas bluff... there would need to be hundreds or thousands of people involved in this sort of bluff and the Soviets could have gotten to any one of them... yet you must be claiming all these people are taking their secrets to the grave...
None of you have given a valid reason for canceling a space rocket Saturn V that was so successful ,too expensive?
People got bored with the moon landings. Unless you are going to Mars then a Saturn IV is simply too much rocket.
BULLSHIT. the space shuttle was more costly. None of you have explained why the Astronauts were so depressed/ashamed and their body language was Obviously not of joy ..what was supposed to be the most amazing day of their lives after making History.. a bad day? BUllshit.. they were never in the moon. as simple as that.. everything was unmanned and they faked the entire walking in the moon .
I have just spent two weeks off work in bed with a cold and when I went back to work yesterday it might come as a shock to you but I felt tired and worn out and lacked energy... do you think after a week in zero gravity and some days on a low gravity moon and then another week back to earth that they might find earths gravity... a bit heavy? how would that effect their body language?
If you mean in interviews much later... how long will your excitement last after the 4,000th interview asking all the same dumb questions... but no, you have to smile and answer politely.
Look at this tormented soul.. after was was supposed to be the most glorious day
of his life.. and returning alive from the "moon"
He must be hiding something... he couldn't possibly be tired...
or the shut down of the program when was so successful.
There was nothing left to do.
No idea why the Proton-M was made with the Angara being so close to release... and already having
different versions of Soyus.. anyway good video..
Proton and Soyuz are proven effective rockets that are ready and tested now. Angara is the future and eventually will replace both, but not yet.
thanks for the vid BTW.
The reason for lead is based on physics and not fantasy engineering.
Where is earths lead shield?
Of all the problems of getting to Mars shielding from radiation is actually the least of their problems... micro gravity means by the time they get to Mars none of the crew would survive landing on the surface because the g forces would break their now brittle bones after 1-2 years in space, and their lack of muscle mass means they couldn't even stand up if they had intact bone structures.
30 tons of lead isn't actually that big a problem... if we reduce it to just shielding the direction of the sun that means 5 of the walls you postulate are no longer needed, so 5 x 6 = 30, so we are actually talking about 5 tons... which is perfectly manageable.
Rockets will likely be sent to Mars first to find frozen water sources... even if they are underground. Such resources could be mined by robots so by the time the humans are sent a large supply of water and also oxygen and rocket fuel could be on Mars ready to leave when you arrive if there is an emergency.
The main ship that will get the crew from earth to mars orbit could be assembled in space in modules including shielded modules to protect the crew from solar radiation or from any nuclear propulsion fitted. In addition to the main ship will be a lander that can land on mars do what needs to be done, refuel on the ground and then launch back up to the mother ship in orbit and everyone could go home...
the best design for the mother ship would be a large orb that can be rotated to simulate artificial gravity so the negative effects are minimised. the central zero g core could be shielded as a food store and crew shelter.
The martian atmosphere may be thin by Earth standards, but it would still generate a sufficient bow shock to deflect the worst of a flare-induced surge on solar radiation, and that is the big killer for any interplanetary crew.
The Martian van allen belt is weak compared with earths.
For all the efforts it could be a case that they pick a more mature crew that has already had children and don't want more and don't expect to live to be 70.
Guaranteed that the craft headed for Mars will have these kind of systems, even if they might not be needed.... - When on the surface of Mars, a underground "dugout" (which has been proposed for the Moon) would absorb even more radiation, possibly allowing for decade-long trips.
Indeed, there was talk of digging for permafrost to get frozen water out of the ground and into storage tanks on a robot mission preceeding the human launch to ensure whatever happens they can land and then will have fuel to take off again. the digging of permafrost should allow for building underground living areas or at least shelter areas that could be used when necessary.
Last edited by GarryB on Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total