General

Why Mars? Why not the moon?

11517192021

Comments

  • edited January 30
    I suspect the only "radiation shield" that will be available is what is found on mars
  • edited January 30
    I don’t think there will be any natural radiation shield. We are going to need to take it with us.

    If we cannot address climate change on a habitable planet like earth how are we going to create a habitable environment on Mars? Firstly I suspect we need to only send up good honest scientists and ban all climate change deniers and those who don’t believe in facts.
  • edited January 30
    I don’t think there will be any natural radiation shield. We are going to need to take it with us.

    If we cannot address climate change on a habitable planet like earth how are we going to create a habitable environment on Mars? Firstly I suspect we need to only send up good honest scientists and ban all climate change deniers and those who don’t believe in facts.
  • edited February 1
    @NKYTA

    A "Doc"...As in 'Doctor'?
  • edited November -1
    @SCCRENDO

    >>> "You don’t need to shield yourself from the soil." <<<

    Yes, actually, you do.

    As I've painstakingly attempted to explain, the lack of much of anything even remotely resembling an 'atmosphere', let alone a magnetic field (both of which work together to repel the majority of the radioactive content being emitted from a variety of sources all around us in Space), has left the Martian soil exposed to the various forms of radiation found in Space for billions of years.

    In fact certain high-particle forms of radiation (like muons for example) are capable of traveling at velocities close to the speed of light, enabling them to be extremely penetrating and capable of traveling thousands of meters below the Earth’s surface.

    Some forms of radiation have such high energies that they are able to penetrate Earth to depths of more than 3.2 km (2 miles).

    https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmic-ray/Studying-cosmic-rays

    So, yes, you do need to 'shield yourself from the soil'!
  • edited February 1
    The link you posted speaks about short lived cosmic rays that can penetrate soil. And indeed soil would not be a protection. The question raised by someone was whether tunneling deep enough you may get some protection. But it in unclear how deep and is it possible. Some form of shielding is needed.

    But that is all besides the point. You have been claiming that the soil is radio-active. Nowhere in your link does it state that the soil remains radioactive to a significant or indeed any degree. Now of course it is possible. But you have not shown it nor explained how it does it.

    At one point I actually thought you knew what you were talking about.
  • edited February 2
    My intent is not to discount the toxicity of the Martian soil due to the presence of those 'perchlorates' you're so obsessed with (which are a constituent of the rocket fuel we use that acts as an oxidizer for the combustion process and possibly found their way there on some space borne bit of particulate current likely whipped up by the interaction between the "solar wind" and the gravity of the terrestrial bodies that encircles our galaxy), just to point out that the toxicity of it or any other chemical that might have found its way to Mars is far overshadowed by the immense amounts of the various forms of radiation that has saturated Mars for billions of years.

    I think you're being deliberately obtuse or, perhaps, might have overlooked some relevant points of the discussion, key among them being the fact that Mars hasn't had any protective means of shielding itself from the surrounding space and solar-based radiation for billions of years, ergo, the whole place is a planet-sized radioactive globe of death (FWIW, the Moon is similarly situated given that it also lacks an atmosphere and relatively no gravity to maintain an atmosphere or repel particles and isotopes).

    Interestingly, I had thought that it has been long understood, common knowledge for at least a few decades now that various forms of radioactive isotopes have rather long "decay" times (the amount of time required for them to lose their energy).

    For example, strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years whereas in the case of the carbon isotope 14C we're talking 5,700 years. Then there's plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24,000 years while uranium-238's half-life is 4.5 million years!

    In short, the half-life of radioisotopes varies from seconds to billions of years:

    https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Radiography/halflife2.htm

    Yet each are just as debilitating to the human physiology in a high enough dose for a particular duration. In fact there are some 2,900 radioisotopes known to man and there's no telling just how many are, as of yet, unknown to us and all are found out there in the vacuum of Space.

    Even those short lived cosmic rays that you made a point of referencing manage to irradiate all that they interact with, various materials and substances and minerals such as is likely found in the Martian soil, many of which possesses inherent properties that enable them to retain of the radiation they're however briefly been exposed to well beyond the relatively meager lifespan of their mothering cosmic rays, yet you want to disregard them merely because of their fleeting lifespan.

    EVERYTHING out there in Space without the sort of naturally occurring protections our planet has is radioactive, e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, so it doesn't matter whatever this or that particle/chemical out there might be as it is ALL radiated.

    BTW, the purpose of the linked article was to provide information about the depth to which radioactive particles have been found to penetrate both the surface and substrate/crust of planetary bodies to address an issue raised by @jimglas & @NKYTA (tunneling for shielded underground habitation), nothing more.
  • edited February 2
    With all due respects you are being obtuse. The topic is “why Mars not the moon. It is not just about radio activity. I have no obsession with perchlorate. I could care less about them except that they block thyroid hormone production. You are the unbalanced one on this thread. I am just correcting your lack of full understanding of the your long threads.
  • edited November -1
    For someone who claims to have no obsession over perchlorates you sure have mentioned it a helluva lot of times.

    In fact you waded into this particular topic by saying that you "don't believe Martian soil is radio-active although it ma[y] be toxic due to perchlorates...", and then went onto mention it (perchlorates) in 4 other replies to myself and @NYKYTA.

    I'm not trying to squabble with you, only educate, though I do find it somewhat bewildering that someone such as yourself with your alleged educational background ('doc') doesn't seem to understand that Mars doesn't have the same atmospheric or magnetic protections that Earth does and hasn't for over 4 billion years, or that not only is radiation the MOST toxic thing out there, it will also kill you long before any perchlorates manage to interfere with your thyroid.

    I can educate your ignorance but I can't fix your stupid, you'll have to do that yourself.

    Whatever, just so long as you now understand that you can't "raw dog" Space, you need protection because radiation is the non-gift that keeps on giving even long after you've been exposed to it and if you've plans of tooling around on the surface, or even below the surface, of Mars then you better have protection.
  • edited February 4
    Educate me as to how the soil becomes radioactive. I'm listen professor.
  • edited February 4
    Listening
  • edited February 5
    Watch the HBO miniseries Chernobyl and you will probably have a stronger understanding of how something that has been exposed to radiation will be radioactive.

    It's also a great show besides.
  • edited February 5
    By being subject to unrestricted exposure to the various types of radiation found in the vacuum of space.

    A general explanation of how things or people can become irradiated can be found here:

    https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/contamination.htm

    https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12968.html

    p.s. I'm not a professor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other evening.
  • edited February 5
    @owlegrad2

    Good advice!

    +1
  • edited February 5
    I have seen the movie Chernobyl. And indeed radioactive particles settling on surfaces are radio active. But neither of you geniuses have provided any link to how soil becomes radio active. From the link provided by Professor Blue Adept
    “ For most radiations that people, especially laypeople, encounter, which would include x rays, gamma radiation, beta particles, and alpha particles, the exposure of the people or objects to the radiation does not produce any radioactivity within them.”
    ANd I believe that is the radiation that people are exposed to on Mars and not radioactive isotopes like in Chernobyl
  • edited February 5
    That's because it is true that most of the radiation we would typically encounter here on Earth is at levels not harmful to us, but we're not talking about the radiation we might encounter here, rather what sort of radiation we will encounter out in Space or on the surface of an unprotected planet like Mars or the Moon even.

    In fact had you of read on you would have come across the following sentence:

    "The radiation impinging on a person or object is different from a case in which someone gets exposed to radioactive materials IN THE ENVIRONMENT...", like an "environment" such as that of Chernobyl or Fukushima or, in particular to our conversation, Space.

    From the linked CDC article that preceded the article that contained the sentence you cited:

    "Radioactive contamination occurs when radioactive material is deposited on or in an object or a person. Radioactive materials released into the environment can cause air, water, surfaces, SOIL, plants, buildings, people, or animals to become contaminated."

    Here, I'll post the link again so you can verify for yourself:

    https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/contamination.htm

    Here's a whole chapter from a published book covering the particulars of radiated soil remediation for your review:

    https://www.intechopen.com/books/soil-contamination-current-consequences-and-further-solutions/radioactive-contamination-of-the-soil-assessments-of-pollutants-mobility-with-implication-to-remedia

    And then you said:

    >>> "ANd I believe that is the radiation that people are exposed to on Mars and not radioactive isotopes like in Chernobyl...."

    https://media1.tenor.com/images/50cc797ff1325a9a0bdb11764f09f44b/tenor.gif?itemid=9764297

    What rock have you been living under?!

    You are aware, are you not, that the SUN is, itself, a ginormous nuclear reactor that literally spews radioactive particles out into Space all around it constantly as it has done so for billions of years and that our little reactors are our vain attempts to recreate the thermonuclear processes of said Sun to provide us power...Yes?
  • edited February 5
    @blue, hence why I suggested we burrow underneath the top layer of Mars' soil (just like we'd be living under the regolith of the Moon, or in craters with thick tops on them).

    How deep do you have to go down before you are protected from surface radiation and the soil is relatively benign? The answer to the first would be as deep as practical. The second is unknown (at least I haven't heard any experiments where we drilled deep and measured various forms of EM).
  • edited February 5
    Without trying to spend too much time trying to debate with someone who doesn't understand let me just state.. I am well aware of isotope contamination which you are perpetually linking. However on Mars I do not believe there is isotope contamination. The issue is external rays which are not blocked like on earth because of the atmosphere. The rays cause damage when not shielded but they do not and I repeat do not turn the soil radioactive. So like Mitch please do not keep posting links about isotope contamination unless you have a paper or link that shows that isotope contamination exists on earth. Personally I think that the only thing worse than an idiot is an idiot with initiative.
  • edited February 5
    @NKYTA

    From one of my replies to @SCCRENDO:

    >>> Some forms of radiation have such high energies that they are able to penetrate Earth to depths of more than 3.2 km (2 miles).

    https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmic-ray/Studying-cosmic-rays

    So we know that, should we chose that option (underground habitation), we'll need to dig at least 2 miles down, but that comes with its own uncertainties and risks given our lack of familiarity with Martian soil composition which we'd still be unable to use as construction material because of contamination.

    Then there's also the hindrance of unforeseen circumstances that are commonplace with the unknown and the observed tendency to overlook the ramifications of mass-less forms of radiation merely because they're unseen and their ability to penetrate any material thoroughly.
  • edited February 5
    @SCCRENDO

    Way to disregard the two(2) linked resources both of which, BTW, specifically explaining how radioactive exposure, much like that of composed of cosmic rays, can contaminate unprotected soil and even has contaminated soil here on Earth (see the effects of Fukushima and Chernobyl fallout) in a couple instances that received worldwide notoriety, though there are a couple other, less publicized ones as well (see New York's "Love Canal" and the more recent "West Lake Landfill" in Bridgeton, Missouri for example).

    It is beyond me why you're unable to comprehend the very simple fact that Mars is exposed to all of the ravages of the Sun and Space itself because it lacks the natural protections that the Earth and, perhaps, other planets have.

    Your reverting to name-calling, as you have throughout this discussion, suggests you are defensive and therefore find my perspective valid, but are being contentious because you lack the integrity of character to go ahead and admit that you are wrong even though you, clearly, know that you are.

    FYI, another little something about the Interwebz that you might not be aware of is that the two of us are not the only ones party to our little virtual tête-à-tête and so everyone else privy to this discussion can also see that you're wrong just as I do.

    So whether you're lacking in character or are only baiting me for your own amusement you're being considerably...extra...and I've no interest in entertaining your ignorance or snide comments anymore.
  • edited February 5
    I can comprehend the simple fact that Mars is exposed to external radiation without the shielding of earth"s atmosphere. That is not waht I am debating. You continue to try debate it. What you do not comprehend is that the soil does not seem to be radioactive> It may be exposed to radiation but you have still failed to show even a sniff of evidence that the soil contains much radioactivity. Nobody is debating the radio active hazard. But the soil does not appear to be radioactive
  • edited February 6
    Final attempt...

    If the soil here on Earth can become radioactive merely from accidental exposure (as has been shown), just how large of a mental leap do you think is required for someone to comprehend//understand that a planet such as Mars, which is devoid of any of the sort of natural protections favored here on Earth and situated in a radiation saturated environment such as the vacuum of Space, has extensively radioactive soil given the fact that it has been exposed to various forms of radiation for billions of years?
  • edited February 6
    it doesnt really matter
    it makes much more sense trying to clean up this planet
  • edited November -1
    True!

    Until we can develop an actually effective means of protecting ourselves from the ravages of the vacuum of Space we should focus our efforts on cleansing our home of pollution and toxins and poisons and other such caustic materials that are destroying our environment and endangering our very livelihood as a species.
Sign In or Register to comment.