best of NM?

jadeheart · 2003-12-05 14:13:34

after just having read the "zubrin's vile ideology" thread, i was wondering if there's any kind of uber-archive that contains the best threads so far in the forum? seems like a good idea for newbies like me who are confronted with the mindboggling mass of previous discourse. i've seen other forums that do this (Guerrilla News Network is one) and thought it might work for this one. i guess it would depend on how much time the folks who maintain NM have.

just an idea.

Adrian · 2003-12-07 17:57:13

I was going to do something like this a long while back, maybe making it a weekly or biweekly thing for the magazine front page, but then it died a death due to lack of time (as did many other things, alas). Still something I would like to do eventually.

What it would consist of is a brief introduction about the general activity on the forum that week/fortnight, and a selection of the best threads with a paragraph or two summarising why those threads are good. Obviously these threads should showcase the best of NM - but they need not be merely about Mars (although most of the time they will be). It would probably increase participation in the forums as well.

If anyone wants to help out with this, reply here!

Adrian · 2003-12-07 17:59:45

Incidentally, I would never, ever get away with putting a link to 'Zubrin's Vile Ideology' on the front page of NM. I do think that things like this should be discussed, but it is the Mars Society that pays for this site's webhosting, and they ultimately call the shots. So any threads that are directly opposed to Mars Society people shouldn't be in a 'Best Of'. But there wouldn't be any problem with threads that say that the Mars Society should be doing things differently, as long as they are, of course, constructive.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-07 19:38:25

Haha, yeah, don't do that. I'm embarrassed of my defense of the bug worshipers there (I think defense of that side of the coin is lacking).

Palomar · 2003-12-07 22:55:54

Incidentally, I would never, ever get away with putting a link to 'Zubrin's Vile Ideology' on the front page of NM. I do think that things like this should be discussed, but it is the Mars Society that pays for this site's webhosting, and they ultimately call the shots. So any threads that are directly opposed to Mars Society people shouldn't be in a 'Best Of'. But there wouldn't be any problem with threads that say that the Mars Society should be doing things differently, as long as they are, of course, constructive.

*My 2 cents' worth: Advertise "Best Of" at your New Mars web page, as in a Special Feature manner, but keep them here, within the board (a new section or folder created especially for it) itself. Also, it seems it's being suggested that 1 person (other than Adrian) do the picking and choosing...I'm not totally comfortable with that (my apologies if I'm misunderstanding something, somewhere...my brain is nearly toast right now); anyone should be able to make recommendations, with Adrian ultimately deciding.

Josh: I got a giggle out of your response (thanks...needed that). BTW, your avatar?

And now it's been a long day...night-night folks.

--Cindy :;):

clark · 2003-12-09 12:49:57

A suggestion for a "Best of NM" thread, or whatever...

"Show-stoppers on the journey to Mars"... or whatever

Ny Times Article: Mars Mission's Invisible Enemy: Radiation

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: December 9, 2003

PTON, N.Y. ? As the United States considers new goals for NASA after the loss of the Columbia, some space enthusiasts have renewed calls for a mission to Mars.
But a team of physicists and biologists here at a laboratory on Long Island is demonstrating that even if the nation wanted to commit to such a goal, it would be far more complex than the Moon mission that gripped the country in the 60's.
One reason is radiation, in the form of heavy ions from distant stars, zipping through everything in their path. Others include price, estimated at $30 billion to $60 billion, and launching enough food, supplies and fuel for a round trip. Any one of these could make the project impractical.

On a trip to Mars and back, probably every cell in the body would be hit by an ionized particle or a proton, researchers say, and they have very little idea what that would do. "If every neuron in your brain gets hit, do you come back being a blithering idiot, or not?" asked Dr. Derek I. Lowenstein, the chairman of Brookhaven's collider accelerator department.
A trip to Mars means "trying to live in an environment that human beings were not built to live in," Dr. Lowenstein said. "Space is not `Star Trek,' but the public certainly doesn't understand that."

The NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, has identified radiation as one of three problems that will have to be solved before a Mars mission. The others are better propulsion and on-board power generation.

The average American receives about 350 millirem of radiation a year: the fraction of solar and cosmic radiation that makes it through Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere; radiation from naturally radioactive rocks and minerals, some incorporated into building materials; higher doses from flying in airplanes; and sources like medical X-rays.
In contrast, the astronauts who went to the Moon on Apollo 14 accumulated about 1,140 millirem, equivalent of about three years on Earth in their nine-day mission. The astronauts on the Skylab 4, who spent 87 days in low Earth orbit, received a dose of about 17,800 millirem (equivalent to a 50-year background dose on Earth).
That dose was near the threshold of radiation exposure that produces clinically measurable symptoms. Longer-term effects like increases in cancer rates have not been observed in adults exposed to doses at that level, but experts presume the effects exist. By comparison, nuclear power plant workers are limited by law to exposures no greater than 5,000 millirem a year; in this country they are generally held below 2,000.
A round trip to Mars would be of a different order of magnitude. Brookhaven puts the exposure at 130,000 millirem over two and a half years. That is equivalent to almost 400 years of natural exposure.
But radiation in space is not like radiation on Earth.

On Earth the dose is mostly made up of gamma rays, which have far less energy than the heavy charged particles of space. But beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and magnetic field, the radiation is mostly ions of every element on the periodic table up to iron (No. 26), moving at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, and approaching from distant stars in all directions. Astronauts in low Earth orbit get some protection from the magnetic field.
Much less is known about the biological effects of this radiation, because very few places can simulate the interplanetary radiation. Brookhaven can do it, but its method, sequentially firing ions of different elements, resembles playing a symphony by mimicking one instrument at a time.

The experiment is repeated with ions of several elements. Dr. Sutherland also uses protons, which come from the Sun and stars and far outnumber the ions.
One theory holds that cells busy repairing damage from protons will not be able to cope with damage from heavy ions; another says that proton irradiation will prime the cell's repair system to be ready for particle damage.
"It's a reasonable thing to ask, what are these first protons going to do to the later response to iron," said Dr. Sutherland, noting that the theory had not been tested.

NASA's chief scientist, John M. Grunsfeld, who as an astronaut made several spacewalks to maintain the Hubble telescope, said the research would take years. "The current plan is about five years but I suspect we'll extend that," he said in an interview in Washington. He hopes that the research reveals the biological mechanism of radiation damage to cells, he added.
Also, some targets are structural materials. The incoming protons and ions have so much energy that they make neutrons peel off the aluminum or other materials; those neutrons are a potent form of radiation. In addition, irradiating some materials can cause changes that make them radioactive. Such "activation products," commonly produced in nuclear reactors on Earth, give off yet more radiation. Researchers hope they can pick materials that will resist such activation or neutron peeling.
A third area of research is shielding. On Earth, radiation shielding is commonly provided by concrete or lead, but the costs of launching spacecraft are so high that this is not practical. One possible solution is a water tank, with the astronauts' living in a chamber in the middle. "It's just so expensive to put material into orbit that you'd like to use materials you have to bring anyway," Dr. Lowenstein said.
And beyond the spaceship itself, making space safe for extended trips beyond the magnetosphere will probably require a new system to monitor the Sun.

For the entire article, you must register with the NY Times (it's free!). Relevant portions of the article though were included in this post.

As one can see, we don't have much information on the long term effects, or the actual tolerance levels, of humans in space. Further research is neccessary both into the effects, and into the means to mitigate the radiation danger.

Adrian · 2003-12-09 18:26:33

Yes, it's a good article, but it wasn't written by an NM member, so I wouldn't be able to include it in any 'Best of NM'.

I would be happy to take suggestions for threads to be included from anyone - I didn't envisage just leaving it to one person.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-05 14:13:34

Re: best of NM?

#2 2003-12-07 17:57:13

Re: best of NM?

#3 2003-12-07 17:59:45

Re: best of NM?

#4 2003-12-07 19:38:25

Re: best of NM?

#5 2003-12-07 22:55:54

Re: best of NM?

#6 2003-12-09 12:49:57

Re: best of NM?

#7 2003-12-09 18:26:33

Re: best of NM?

Board footer