Guest “We already knew this from the Apollo Program” by David Middleton
NASA’s “crash test dummies” Helga and Zohar, along with an array of radiation instrumentation demonstrated that the Artemis spacecraft provides adequate shielding for short duration lunar missions. The results of these measurements were recently published in Nature.
The paper is open access, with the full text freely available. Here’s the abstract:
Abstract
Space radiation is a notable hazard for long-duration human spaceflight1. Associated risks include cancer, cataracts, degenerative diseases2 and tissue reactions from large, acute exposures3. Space radiation originates from diverse sources, including galactic cosmic rays4, trapped-particle (Van Allen) belts5 and solar-particle events6. Previous radiation data are from the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle in low-Earth orbit protected by heavy shielding and Earth’s magnetic field7,8 and lightly shielded interplanetary robotic probes such as Mars Science Laboratory and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter9,10. Limited data from the Apollo missions11,12,13 and ground measurements with substantial caveats are also available14. Here we report radiation measurements from the heavily shielded Orion spacecraft on the uncrewed Artemis I lunar mission. At differing shielding locations inside the vehicle, a fourfold difference in dose rates was observed during proton-belt passes that are similar to large, reference solar-particle events. Interplanetary cosmic-ray dose equivalent rates in Orion were as much as 60% lower than previous observations9. Furthermore, a change in orientation of the spacecraft during the proton-belt transit resulted in a reduction of radiation dose rates of around 50%. These measurements validate the Orion for future crewed exploration and inform future human spaceflight mission design.
Artemis II
Artemis II could launch as early as September 2025. The 10-day mission to orbit the Moon will be the first manned mission to the Moon since Apollo 17 in December 1972.
NASA
Artemis II will be the first flight with crew aboard NASA’s deep space exploration system: the Orion spacecraft, Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the ground systems at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. During their mission, four astronauts will confirm all of the spacecraft’s systems operate as designed with people aboard in the actual environment of deep space, over the course of about a 10-day mission. The Artemis II flight test will pave the way to land the first woman and next man on the Moon on Artemis III.
The four-person crew will consist of:
- Commander Reid Wiseman
- Pilot Victor Glover
- Mission Specialist Christina Koch
- Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen
NASA/Kim Shiflett
The SLS rocket will blast off from Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39B.
Reference
George, S.P., Gaza, R., Matthiä, D. et al. Space radiation measurements during the Artemis I lunar mission. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07927-7
Just in case it’s needed…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe I am just grouchy this evening, but what is the point? We been there, done that—50 years ago. Agencies and the programs within them should all have sunset provisions, forcing a new justification for renewal. Else, bureaucratic inertia sets in like at EPA where costs now greatly exceed benefits, but on they go. No government agency has ever declared ‘mission accomplished’.
Some quick googlefu.
The Artemis portion of NASA’s budget for 2024 is $7.6 billion.That would buy two nuclear subs with over a billion in change left over, or three Arleigh Burke class destroyers, or 96 F35s. It would fund the VA deficit 2.5x. It would more than double the Secret Service budget so no more attempted assassination excuses. It would fund completing the southern border wall times 3. The left overs from just one year would quadruple the immigration court system, needed to get rid of all the illegals who have come in because it wasn’t completed.
All of which are more important than going back to the moon.
Sorry, Rud, but it appears you don’t at all appreciate the virtue signaling from NASA that is associated with landing both the first woman AND the “first person of color” on the Moon’s surface.
Those are the two highest reasons given by NASA for the Artemis III mission (as originally defined). It’s the first sentence at https://www.nasa.gov/reference/artemis-iii/ .
You are correct. I don’t appreciate it—especially not on my tax dollars.
Then when Harris loses to Trump, they can send her- and check off 3 woke items.
I do not think sex or skin tone are traits that qualify a person as an astronaut or anything else, just as I do not think sex or skin tone are traits that disqualify a person.
So why are we being so racist and misogynistic. Either the person is qualified by education, training, experience, and whatever physical requirements for performance of the job or they are not.
The ability to communicate effectively and efficiently is also a desired capability.
Yep. I provided a link to the crew’s bio’s. Obviously no one clicked on it. Glover and Koch are as qualified as is humanly possible for this mission.
I never stated or even implied that these individual weren’t qualified to be on Artemis. I only played back NASA’s own words as to the primary objectives of the planned Artemis III mission.
It is first and foremost virtue signaling . . . then comes all the science/technology reasons.
I was pretty sure they were qualified. But my point is sex and skin tone have nothing to do with those qualifications.
You are speaking for yourself (and perhaps others), definitely not me.
No. I was not speaking for myself. Learn a bit of English and sentence structure. We = society in context.
From the Oxford Languages online dictionary:
“we
/wē/
pronoun
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.”
Now, you were saying something about learning and English . . .
And earlier you posted:
ROTFL.
Merriam Webster:
wepronounˈwē
plural in construction
1
: I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural
We live here.
We would like to order now.
We had a party at school.
We is always plural!
When used by a speaker referring to themselves, it is still plural as the intent by the speaker is to include others.
When royalty uses ‘we’, it refers to their entire court and is still very plural.
Thank you for confirmation, although your post appears to come from the Department of Redundancy Department. 😉
ATK,
Actually, the dictionary is wrong according to my education. Should be “You and me”, not “You and I”. Geoff S
I think ATheoK is correct.
As a subject, in this example: “We (i.e., You and I) will visit the doctor.”
As an object, the word should be “us”, not “we”, as in this example:
“The doctor will visit us (i.e., you and me).”
Victor Glover is a naval aviator and test pilot…
https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/astronauts/victor-j-glover/
And his brother, Crispin Glover, starred in the first “Back to the Future” film.
And his uncle Danny Glover was in the Lethal Weapon movies.
Cousin Corey Glover is lead singer of the rock band Living Colour
Uncle Roger Glover was bassist for Deep Purple and Rainbow.
Deep Purple’s Space Trucking not withstanding, none of the other Glovers are qualified to fly spacecraft
I wonder how Victor finds work experience between long-distance business trips. 😀
Geoff S
https://www.nasa.gov/people/christina-koch/#hds-sidebar-nav-4
OK. Got it.
You may be right about NASA doing this, but going to the Moon has tremendous opportunities for expanding humanity off of Earth. Elon Musk has argued extensively for a multi-planetary humanity.
The Moon has a lot of raw materials and “free” vacuum. Light metals and vacuum are very useful for manufacturing semiconductors. The water ice at the south Lunar pole can be used for a lot of things, including rocket fuel and oxygen. Learning how to work outside of Earth orbit is experience we need to go further than the Moon, to Mars, the asteroids, and the outer planet moons. There are possibly quadrillion$ in resources on the Moon and the asteroids.
I would totally agree that NASA should not be the primary driving force, but it would be a missed financial opportunity to not have businesses get out there.
Suppose you are right. Then why are no businesses pursuing this ‘opportunity’? Remember, SpaceX is subsidized by NASA because after the Shuttle they had no other (than Russian) Space Station access solution.
Private interest in space would be regulated into a hole without govt “partnership”.
Like ‘Astronaut Farmer’
Can you imagine a profitable and successful private endeavor, with lunar stationing, that didn’t have to answer to a govt.
“How much will the (income/import) taxes be on these minerals …? O.K. I’ll just deal with Russia then.”
“The Supreme Court says you don’t have pay for the costs of an inspector on a Lobster Boat, but we need to be sure everything is above-board, so you DO have to include a govt inspector on all non-research travel outside of earth atmosphere.”
You have it exactly backwards. SpaceX is subsidizing NASA and the Federal government by drastically reducing the cost of space launches. Elon Musk personally bankrolled Space X and their investments in reusable space launch vehicles. They invented the tech, developed the tech, and proved the tech – when neither NASA, or any other nation, or any other private enterprise was willing to risk the billions necessary with no subsidy or guarantees was granted,
Space X has invested their own funds and many years of effort into developing their own lunar missions as well as Martian missions.
Some people see the $7500 tax credit for EVs and call it a subsidy, which it is. But any business which refused to sell products because the government was subsidizing their sales would be broke, and anyone who refused to enter a field because it was receiving subsidies would find few investors.
Having decided that Musk is taking government subsidies, they assume everything he does gets government subsidies.
It’s stupid. SpaceX charges something like half what the legacy launchers charge. Is SpaceX supposed to turn away government business, or boost their prices so they don’t have any advantage?
If you charge more than your competitors, that’s price gouging.
If you charge less, that’s predatory.
If you charge the same, that’s collusion.
When I saw one of his rockets coming down for a landing- and it was grabbed by a tower, I thought- why didn’t NASA think of that 50 years ago?
They did, but they decided at the time the cost-risk-benefit analysis was negative, so they passed.
Of course what you saw was computer generated.
The NEXT Starship launch is intended to include a first catch of the booster.
However the FAA, after cancelling the 2 required public meetings a couple of month ago have delayed the “revised launch license” by 2 months. I don’t think they have rescheduled the meetings yet. SpaceX is ready to launch NOW. They delay, due to leftist radical “environmentalists” complaints that included factual inaccuracies.
The Brandon administration is all out to disrupt the Starship program while they still can. They have been attacking many of Musk’s businesses by bureaucratic lawfare/regulationfare ever since he bought Twitter.
FAA 300K fine for spraying potable water onto a somewhat tidal wetland at Boca Chica Starbase that gets 30 inches of rainfall a year. This year rainfall has been much higher. When is the FAA going to fine God, or Gaia if you prefer.
FAA 600K fine. 300K for a Falcon launching successfully using an “unapproved” control center that was built and completed faster than the FAA could “approve” the installation for use. Space X launched after being told 2 days before the scheduled launch that the approval would not be granted. the other 300K was for not doing some check at T-2 that was not required. These were for “violations” last year, when SpaceX launched 98 rockets. They have already reached 90 launches this year.
The FAA responsibility is for the safety of PEOPLE. SpaceX has brought suit against the FAA.
Further the fed equal employment agency has charged SpaceX for not employing aliens who the Biden administration has give work permits, including those who are in the phony asylim mill and have NOT BEEN VETTED, i.e. potential spies. Since rockets are military technology, SpaceX is not ALLOWED to hire that type of employee. The old Catch 22.
Feds are harassing Neurolink for very minor problems with their first EXPERIMENTAL brain implant. Anything to delay scientific advancements for the paralyzed people the business was created for. They have already implanted a second patient with an improved version. The improvements due to the first iteration implant. The first patient is still VERY HAPPY with his improved LIFE.
Musk uses iterative advancement for his technologies. Make it, test it in the real world. See what did and didn’t work. Make another one and do it again. As rapidly as possible. Brandon and his administration is doing what they can to delay the process at Neurolink and SpaceX.
As a side note, I hope to be at South Padre Island for the Starship ITF 5 launch and first ever catch attempt. Wish me luck.
“They delay, due to leftist radical “environmentalists” complaints that included factual inaccuracies.”
The Feds are harassing Musk because he supported Donald Trump well before he endorsed Donald Trump.
RFK jr. is similarly being harassed by the Feds.
That has only “happened” in animations, not reality (yet).
Ah, shucks- and I thought it was super cool.
That hasn’t happened, yet.
What SpaceX did accomplish is landing their booster on offshore ships.
SpaceX did the science and got the mechanics down so they could upright the rocket and land on the ships on their bases.
Their landings are so well controlled that they hit target circles which is why, SpaceX wants them to land where towers can grab them and immediately return them to the facility.
Up in the Artemis II drawings is one where NASA intends to land on the moon. An action not performed since Apollo.
I doubt enough Apollo data on landings has survived to teach astronauts or a computer landing upright..
Nor has NASA’s recent Intuitive Machines Odysseus moon landing of a communications device, which landed on it’s side improved this thought.
In fact, quite a few recent attempts to land on the moon, Mars or an asteroid have failed.
Where have you been the last two decades? Seriously?
Space X and their suppliers have bern investing many tens of billions in privately funded space travel ever since the company was founded, with groundbreaking success in driving down space launch costs by an order of magnitude – a necessary condition for pursuit of both lunar and Martian missions. Nobody else in the world, public or private, dared risk their capital in the pursuit of economically feasible space travel.
That’s hilarious! How about:
— Jeff Bezos and his company “Blue Origin”?
— Relativity Space?
— Axiom Space?
— Firefly Aerospace?
OK TYS, as to BO.
Jeff Bezos, in a classic case of Crony Capitalism, got his buddies in the Democrat party to fund him SPECIFICALLY to the tune of 3.4 billion dollars to build a Human Lansing System for NASA moon missions.
When the project was bid, SpaceX won the bid at 2.9 billion. NASA was allowed to pick 2 companies but chose only SpaceX since NO OTHER COMPANY showed the capability to provide the service. Note that the man who made that decision was separated from NASA after Brandon came into the presidency.
So Jeff, with his clout, owner of the Washington Compost, and his Democrat cronies, got a bill passed through congress REQUIRING a second lander. And even increased the funding above Musk’s bid.
BTW: Bezos has yet to have a rocket reach orbit. He finally has a rocket and a landing barge at Cape Canaveral so we shall see IF it works.
FYI: BO was founded in 2000. SpaceX in 2002. BO 0, ZERO, orbital launches, SpaceX 90 so far THIS YEAR ALONE. 385 total, 349 LANDINGS, 318 reflights of boosters, up to 23 launches of a single booster.
Second BTW: Starship development is primarily funded by Starlink sales and fees. Musk’s money is paying for the development.
The other 3 have ALL received funding from the US government.
Relativity Space, Falcon 9 knockoff. Has not yet reached orbit.
Axiom Space, near bankruptcy. Not a rocket company, a space station habitat development company. They got at least 140 million from NASA.
Firefly Aerospace, has actually reached orbit. They plan for larger rockets payloads and also have been developing a lunar cargo lander for NASA
On 16 April 2021, NASA selected the SpaceX Starship HLS for crewed lunar lander development plus two lunar demonstration flights – one uncrewed and one crewed – no earlier than 2024. The contract is valued at US$2.89 billion over a number of years.
On 15 November 2022, NASA announced the “Option B” award of US$1.15 billion to the initial SpaceX HLS contract that would allow a second-generation Starship HLS design to conduct a demonstration mission after Artemis 3.
So, SpaceX currently stands to receive $4.04 billion from NASA! Do your imagine that Elon Musk doesn’t have political connections?
Now, you were saying something about crony capitalism . . .
Ok TYS, I covered that. SpaceX is CAPABLE of the HLS. The 2022 money to Bezos is exactly as I explained. Direct to BO ONLY and 3.4 billion.
Musk and SpaceX EARN the money. Bezos gets it with NO COMPETITION ALLOWED.
How much of the extra SpaceX 1.15 billion is for HLS?? For other projects?
How much is for SpaceX rescuing Boeing astronauts? How much for delivering payloads to the ISS. All things BO, incorporated in 2000, 2 years before SpaceX, CAN NOT DO.
NASA picked SpaceX because they actually want a lander this decade. BO has no trac record to show any ability to deliver, but your lib crony capitalist friends in congress and the white house gave them/Bezos 3.4 billion anyway.
As Yoda would say “Such a closed minded leftist you are.”
To repeat what I replied to you at September 20, 2024 9:31 am above:
“On 15 November 2022, NASA announced the ‘Option B’ award of US$1.15 billion to the initial SpaceX HLS contract that would allow a second-generation Starship HLS design to conduct a demonstration mission after Artemis 3.”
Your remote armchair psychoanalysis and ad hominem attack are worth exactly what I paid to get them.
How many of them have launched a successful mission to Low Earth Orbit, or beyond?
Uhhhhh . . . the claim raised by Duane that I replied to was:
“Nobody else in the world, public or private, dared risk their capital in the pursuit of economically feasible space travel.”
There was no mention of launches into LEO.
BTW, SpaceX has not launched any Starship into even one complete low Earth orbit.
Wow.
“economically feasible space travel” The FIRST step is LEO. LOLOL! Your buddy Jeff, 24 years ZERO LEO attempts even.
So TYS, you have yet to explain your hatred for Musk and SpaceX. None of your comments address the FACT that SpaceX IS a commercial moneymaking company delivering well over 80% of the worldwide mass to orbit. You don’t comment on the actual capability of the various companies YOU brought into the conversation.
As to Starship. By far largest rocket ever developed. Wholly developed by SpaceX, from design to manufacture to development of the first production combined stage rocket engine. To new metallurgy for the rocket components and specific ratios for the stainless steel used for the rocket. To the improved heat shield tiles currently on their second iteration. To the design and use of the most complicated part of the rocket “system”, the launch tower which stacks the rocket and Starship for launch and is used for booster static fire testing.
This whole program is due to ONE MAN”S VISION. No on else even thought of reusing boosters multiple times as SpaceX does with the Falcon 9, several boosters have reached 22 launches, at least on reached 23 launches. No one dreamed of reusing the entire vehicle, both launch booster and orbital stage.
None of the 4 Starship launches were intended to reach orbit BY DESIGN. They were all test articles. SpaceX WILL achieve orbital status. They WILL catch a booster. They will catch a Starship after returning from orbit. They WILL send ships to Mars in 2 years. The WILL land a ship on the moon within 2 years.
That is if the Elon haters in the US government are prohibited from delaying PROGRESS.
A couple of years back liberals wanted to be called “progressives”.
Liberals are not progressive. Your attitude of envy and support for your chosen “champion” Jeff Bezos, shows you to be a died in the wool liberal of the Democrat party mold. The “liberals” of today wish to use their power to maintain power. They wish to PICK the winners and losers, like giving your buddy Jeff, whose BO has almost ZERO accomplishments due to their old style “it must be perfect the first launch” methodology, the specifically directed by congress 3.4 billion dollars.
Unlike you I hope, the for the sake of the US taxpayer, that Bezos’ New Glen works. I hope that EVENTUALLY BO produces a successful HLS, although I may not live to see it since BO is SOOO SLLLOOOOWWW to get anything done. I am 68, my mother is 94, so I may live long enough.
Elon Musk is a blessing to humanity. He envisions things no one else does then he actually makes it happen. You must hate him, like the entirety of the Brandon administration, because of X, a platform for social media discussion the left does not control and that does not censor truthful (covid is just a bad flue, the so called vaccine does not work, Brandon is senile, far more people will die and are dying from the effects of the mRNA gene manipulation, etc.) not approved by the government speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg
Take a look at Starbase today, getting ready to stack.
You can see the under construction second launch, catch tower in the background. It will be improved, a second iteration.
Is that really you, Elon?
followed in the very same post, literally just two sentences later, by:
Well . . . could be signs of paranoid schizophrenia creeping in. Try again?
Except now they also have the Starliner!
Absolutely meaningless goal without a much better plan and many other technological advancements.
Only Earth has a breathable atmosphere.
Here on Earth, attempts to try and produce sufficient food by greenhouses fail regularly, for enclosed volunteers. Especially when they try to grow a balanced diet.
Such trials are exercises in futility on the moon, Mars or any other planet or planetoid in our solar system.
To get to basics, how many trips to the moon before they figure out how to grow a decent amount of food, every time?
Next are fuels. I understand what a planned visit to the asteroid belt looking for fuel could accomplish. A mission that could be accomplished by robots.
Still, they have to find fuel and raw materials and make plans for smelting, refining, machining/rolling/casting usable parts.
These could certainly be robot jobs, but we haven’t scratched this surface at all.
I do not know of any robot experiments that include maintenance of ship, equipment and fellow robots.
The far distant search for habitable planets, as far as I know, are unable to spot Earth sized planets as they identify distant planets by their effect on nearby planets or by their transit periods.
The best they can do is eliminate unlikely solar systems.
At this rate, we are a hundred years away from searching for another habitable planet.
Yes, businesses would be very interested in technical advances, but there is nobody outside of SpaceX hiring geniuses and using their ideas.
NASA is only capable of incremental change at this point. Incremental change which translate into identical actions by Apollo, only with newer rockets, suits and vehicles.
I’d suggest the foods are identical.
NASA’s budget constitutes a tenth of a percent of the US budget, which goes another trillion in debt every hundred days. Rather than spending on subs and F35s, or building the wall, we could spend it on flying more Haitians and Venezuelans into the US–maybe a few more Chinese bachelors looking for wives (we guess). Xi would be grateful. Debt is addressed in two major ways: inflation and population growth. And you keep the Dems in power at the same time. –AGF
Maybe (ok this is fantasy) the idea is to develop massive habitats on the moon to give all these aliens a home?
Then they could be space aliens?
Illegal space aliens…
Papers . . . we ain’t got no papers . . . we don’t need no papers. I don’t gotta show you any stinking papers . . .
Just think of all the additional associate chairs of ESG and grievance studies in academia that could have funded instead of actually doing something.
Your Government at work! We could do without probably at least half of the BS spending.
80%.
7bn would build 3 million low income housing units.
Even low income people can afford a home if they are willing to move to low income areas and not demanding to live in expensive cities.
Remove 20 million illegals from the country.
No need to build ANY housing whatsoever.
In Los Angles, low income “housing unit” costs are running up to about $1 million per unit.
Because of government funding and control.
Gotta go there because China is going there.
Oh, the perfect reason!
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Got to get there first and take the high ground.
With a TRUMP!, an honorable man as president, and hopefully successive honorable presidents in the future, no more wars due to the ease of throwing dirt clods at any bad actors.
Harris wins, then let China have the Moon Their government would be more honorable than the continuation of the current cabal when controlling the Moon.
Ahhh, the hubris of man.
hubris, look it up,
I was well aware of the definition of “hubris”, but I looked it up anyway for your benefit. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hubris :
hubris (noun) — exaggerated pride or self-confidence
It fits the characterization of anyone that believes the Moon can be “controlled”.
Here’s a thought: maybe it’s you who doesn’t understand what the verb “control” means.
I understand your point, Rud, but the same point was discussed during the previous moon-shot effort. You probably don’t agree, but I think the technology and information gain was worth it.
The money could be spent on the items you mentioned, but would it? “Oh, we’ll cancel the space program and spend it on nuclear subs!” I don’t think that is a likely scenario, those decisions are made independently.
Good chance it would be added to the EPA budget – which is ALREADY $11 billion for the fiscal year about to start. You can calculate just how much further we’d be on a lot of actually useful things if their budget for the last ten years had been spent differently, instead of depressing the economy and polluting the environment.
Oh, by the way, Apollo total cost estimated at $23.6 billion. Which is $167.3 billion in 2024 dollars. Total cost of Artemis will hit $93 billion by the end of next fiscal year. So still some $74 billion less than the total spent on Apollo. (This doesn’t account for amortizable costs, such as booster development, which can be used for things OTHER than a moon shot. Unlike the Saturn V.)
It has been estimated that a single SLS launch will cost more than US$2B – not likely to attract any other payloads.
Rud,
Agreed. The US, UK Canada and Australia at least have governments doing what they want to do, when they should do what the people want them to do. So we have these stupid movements like DEI and ESG that influence the composition and objectives of teams like these pictured astronauts. Too many voters have been brainwashed into unthinking agreement that top priority has to be given to “environmental protection” and its agencies, when the real environment is tough and doing quite well. The EPAs of this world have ended their lives. We should campaign to retire them.
A year ago Australia had a Referendum to change our Constitution, a rare event. The Federal, State and Local governments overall promoted a change to allow special recognition of an aboriginal “voice” in Parliaments, with these folk being under 4% of the population. While the governments wanted this, the people did not. They voted 60% to 39% against and rejected it in all 6 States.
Undeterred, the government sector is now attempting to do much of what the people rejected. We are in a quiet battle between bureaucrats/politicians/activists on one hand and voters, who are mostly uninterested and poorly informed.
There, I suggest, lies the problem. I do not know the solutions, but can suggest some. For future election candidates, we need fewer lawyers (with respect, Rud), fewer arts grads, fewer people with odd, strong beliefs and causes and more people who have long experience in industry, maybe more top scientists and engineers. Melbourne has had a rash of violent activists protesting in our streets, emphasising the need to better guidelines and laws for this exercise of freedom by protest.
From the above article:
“Artemis II could launch as early as September 2025.”
Then again, its equally probable that Artemis II could launch as early as December 2030.
Isn’t everything meant to be “all electric” by then ? 😉
Even Elon Musk realizes they don’t make charging cables that long.
Regardless, or irregardless, of what NASA and the obstructionist FAA does, SpaceX will launch at least 1 Starship to Mars in 2 years.
We’ll see . . . I put the odds of him doing that, successfully, at 1 in 1,000. He won’t even have a Starship headed to the Moon in the next two years.
AFAF.
Will NASA be selling that blue costume and the strapping so that people can have their own Helga at home moments?
But seriously, noting the reduction in radiation measurements, comparing to Apollo, can anyone tell if the original higher doses actually did any harm? Maybe we are better suited to radiation exposure than some would have us believe.
Good question, so I did some quick googlefu.
From the google query of Moon astronauts:
Now, all Appolo astronauts were (and probably remained) in superb physical condition. But still, this is a circumstantial proof of ‘nope’.
Stafford made two journeys to the moon — Apollo X and Apollo XIII.
Hey, don’t forget Buzz Aldrin, second man on the Moon 11 will be 95 next January! Just got married again last year so the radiation must be good for you!
What about Buzz Lightyear ??
Astronauts who have traveled to the Moon or spent significant time in high
Earth orbit have experienced a higher incidence of heart disease than those who never left low Earth orbit. This has been attributed to radiation exposure
I’ll try to dig up the paper.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.631985/full
Cardiovascular problems are FAR more likely to be caused by microgravity. From the introduction: “Current data on this topic is derived from experimental animal or cell culture studies that have significant limitations.”
In other words, “Send more money!”
Perhaps you’re willing to be a test subject for radiation doses?
Did Boeing build it?
Exciting
“adequate shielding”
Doesn’t sound adequate to me. If I was going up in that – I’d want better than adequate.
One word: “weight.”
While this is fascinating and I am no stranger to radiation effects on electronics, I do not perceive the connection to climate science or climate politics.
What did I miss?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/about2/
Thank you.
Wiki lists WUWT as a climate denier site.
I list Wiki as…
Been that way since the very early days, Sparta. But this is the MOST FAMOUS “client denier” site.
Actually, this is the premier denial site of what I personally call “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Anomalies.” In other words, most of us here don’t believe in caca.
They would.
The shielding failed to protect from cosmic radiation.
Am I reading the paper wrongly?
Genuine question.