from news.yahoo.com


Dangerous levels of radiation in space could bar astronauts from a mission to Mars and limit prolonged activity on the moon, experts now caution.

However, more research could reveal ways to handle the risks that radiation poses to space missions.

The magnetic field of Earth protects humanity from radiation in space that can damage or kill cells. Once beyond this shield, people become far more vulnerable.

Astronauts have long seen white flashes while in space due to cosmic rays, or extremely high-energy particles, passing through their heads. A return to the moon or a mission to Mars that NASA and other space agencies are planning would place astronauts at continued risk from cosmic rays or dangerous bursts of solar radiation.

Several reports in the past have outlined the potential risks.

To further investigate the risks that space radiation currently pose, the National Research Council assembled experts in space and biology together. At the present time, given current knowledge, the level of radiation astronauts would encounter "would not allow a human crew to undertake a Mars mission and might also seriously limit long-term Moon activity," this committee notes in their new report today.

Uncertainties remain

Still, much remains uncertain regarding the actual risks that space radiation poses for the body, explained committee member Walter Schimmerling, a scientist now retired from NASA's space radiation program. All these uncertainties mean that safety margins have to remain high, limiting how long astronauts can stay in space. This in turn could rule out a mission to Mars, as well as long-term or multiple missions to the moon.

"The way to deal with that problem is to reduce the margins of uncertainty," Schimmerling told SPACE.com.

To enable at the very least lunar missions with astronauts, the committee stressed that radiation biology research deserved the highest priority. However, the experts noted that NASA's space radiation biology research has been significantly compromised by recent cuts in funding, leading to major gaps in our knowledge of the health risks of radiation, such as cancer, neurological damage and degenerative tissue disease.

NASA's entire space radiation biology research program is critically dependent on the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory, which in turn relies on the U.S. Department of Energy's heavy ion physics program. The committee strongly recommended that NASA do as much research at this lab as it could, in case Department of Energy's priorities shift and dramatically reduce the availability of the lab.

"No one knows how long the window of opportunity is for how long this laboratory is available — 10 or 15 years seems a reasonable guess," Schimmerling said.

Possible solutions

When it comes to shielding astronauts from radiation, spacecraft designers and mission planners have to consider trading off a safe amount of protective material — say, high density plastic — with cutting weight in order to enter space practically. Crafts that are too heavy simply can't carry enough fuel to make flight practical. Further research could not only look into better shielding materials, but also spacecraft designs that put electronics and machinery in the periphery between astronauts and harm's way.

"Lava tubes on the moon might also be useful as habitats from a shielding point of view," Schimmerling said. "I don't know how realistic the idea is, but they would have the advantage of reduced exposure to radiation."

The sun is a major source of dangerous radiation astronauts might encounter especially during solar storms that can erupt with little notice. The committee also recommended further research into forecasting these outbursts.

* Measurement of Mars Radiation
* Surviving Space: Risks to Humans on the Moon and Mars
* Future 'Martians' Could Live in Caves

* Original Story: Space Radiation Too Deadly For Mars Mission

Hmmm. Opinions anyone?

There is no science so pressing that we can not continue to deploy robotic missions- everywhere.

Special interests may see otherwise, though.

What will be the cost of a trip to Mars in 2040? Probably more than we currently expect.

So, all of these human piloted missions seem moot. Unless, our defence sector or aerospace sectors deem such a mission necessary for national defense or economic multiplier effect, of any country, I'm guessing it may not come to fruition. Of course, it is thirty years in the future.

I don't keep up with Mars missions, though. So, perhaps there are already solid answers regarding shielding against CMEs, or a solar flares on an extended manned mission. Like, solar minimum, plus special materials, and lava tubes, etc. However, like this article says, certain materials research may not be in for another decade, at least.

I favor the idea of satellite or robotic missions for anything beyond LEO.

We can, should, and will continue with robotic missions.
However, there is no comparison between robotic missions and manned missions, where possible.
Apollo showed us that.




Actually, it will likely be a lot less than significant--relative to the Federal budget. Space exploration has ALWAYS been a minor part of the budget, and I see no reason to believe it will ever come close to a significant part of the Federal budget.





A manned Mars mission, and the return to the Moon, have nothing to do with defense. It has to do with the benefits of space exploration that have been clearly illustrated throughout the manned space exploration effort.




One of the reasons that there are years of development ahead in the exploration of Mars, or the Moon for any extended period, is because further research into the environment is in work now to determine the requirements for humans who will spend many months on the lunar surface, or who will be spending upwards of two years in space for a manned mission to Mars.



And that will always be a part of space exploration to be sure, but again, there is no substitute for a trained man.

with the money spent by our goofball pres in the last four years we could of all been liveing on MARS! DONTEATUS

Well, D...

While I will say that goivernment spending has been way too high throughout this, and many prior recent administrations, I don't think we'd be living on Mars now if they weren't so hell bent on spending.

That amount of money would never find its way into the space exploration portion of the budget!

we if its true, there is only one thing for deep space travel and thats genetically altered human beings, specially altered to be able to with stand the radiation and other effects of living in space, and maybe even increasing the life span, so those distant stars dont seem distant anymore,

Personally, I don't think the radiation problem will pose an insurmountable problem.
Genetically altered humans...now that's something that will pose some difficulties!

It's pathetic how much money is wasted on useless projects when we could be devoting the time and resources to Space Exploration. The cost of the London Olympics is over £12 Billion. NASA's Vision for Space Exploration has a budget of around £8.5 Billion. We (U.K) could have put the money into developing our own under-funded space agency and developed our own 'Space-ships' for less than the cost of the Olympics.

What is more important? The Olympics, or developing new technologies that could potentially save the planet, all the while establishing a permanently manned Human outpost in space/on the moon?

Robotics have made huge advances in just the past couple of years, in twenty years time we might never have to put human life at risk again

Robotics and un-manned space technology have indeed made great advances. However, there is, and never shall be a substitute for a human mind and body doing the work.

Additionally, humans take risks willingly to learn and expand understanding. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. No one forces anyone to take risks, or puts others at risk without their consent.

Taking risks is how humans expand themselves. It's always been that way, and always will.

Thats for sure" Mid" its up to kids and us who are here now waht gets done in the future.Never will understand the lets wait and see crowd. Lets blast off and see! come on Mankind! we were made to explore the depths of the universe. DONTEATUS. p.s. Mid did you see the vidio?

You know I did!

I'm still holding my breath!

That might take us quite a while.

thanks for the replys MID, Alex, yep i guess so, the space program takes to long for the living,.......i wish governments from around the world would get their fingers out their arses club together and spend more money on space exploration,............its all too slow for my liking.

More money......... that might not work. What really works is when these countries work together on the space program, right now we have archived an 'alliance' between NASA, ESA, Roskosmos, and JAXA, and what have we archived with that? The ISS.

It would be great if these worked toguether in the future aswell, exploration on the Moon, Mars, it would certainly get the job done, but by the looks on things, it looks like it is not going to be like that at all.

I'll agree with Alex, here. These days, the U.S. exports lots of dollars overseas, everyday. I'd prefer to see them go into home grown science research and development- with the best space programs to meet our needs, including research and exploration. Even if we go to the Moon. There is some frivolity in modern societey, which might otherwise pay for more interesting objectives- like space programs.

To reply to MID-

Apollo is just the ultimate.

Although, if we had a moon mobility platform that could fly around, I think that would be pretty exciting. I read somewhere it was considered too heavy, back in the 1960's.
A moon buggy weighed less, and was selected for Apollo.

And, I'll agree with the things you said, like human exploration. That is, if they can safely go to Mars and return. Maybe a nuclear rocket...

I am hoping...praying actually that Apollo, although just so cool, wasn't the ultimate. It'll always hold a special place in the hearts of everyone who was around for it, to be sure, but Constellation promises to be the next step beyond Apollo.

There were lots of plans during Apollo's formative years. Dr. von Braun had a bunch of ideas that reached far into the future, and some that might have bepn possible for Apollo itself, at least as he, and certain visionaries envisioned it. I recall some designs for manned platforms that might have carried the men for miles aloft to various locales on the lunar surface.

But the fact was, we had budgetary and time constraints on Apollo. Further, we had a precise mission to accomplish: land men on the Moon (pick up some rocks), and return them safely to the Earth. Extras were not a part of the initial goal, and while we did include them in the latter missions, we had no money or support for research intensive things like a flying platform that could carry us many miles to extend our range.

We more-or-less did what we could with the money we had in our pockets...and that wasn't bad.

But the future holds alot of promise!