Private Mars Flyby Mission for 2018

[Algebraist]

[/quote]
Am I correcting in assuming a strong enough magnetic field would be able to shield the crew?

Yes, but, you'd need one of stupendous strength. Something on the order of 20 Tesla (about 400,000x the strength of Earth's magnetic field.) And you'd probably require two such fields. One to shield the crew from the incoming cosmic rays, and another of the opposite polarity to shield to crew from the first (as moving around inside static magnetic fields of a mere 0.5 Tesla is enough to cause electrolysis of saliva and other notable biological effects.)

To generate such a field would, by one estimate I've read, require some nine tons of superconducting cable, its associated cryogenic cooling, and the rigid structures required to keep said cables in place.

Why would you need such a strong field. A much weaker field protects on Earth

The effectiveness of shielding depends on the strength of the magnetic field and the thickness of that field. The product of the two determines how far the particles are deflected - to shield effectively the radiation needs to be deflected around the outside of the body in question.

The earth has a weak field that extends for a long distance!

I dont think a field as strong as 20 Tesla is needed. NASA are investigating shields in the region of 1 to 10 Tesla of varying thicknesses to see what is most effective. Planning to use high temperative superconducting magnets.
Their initial research indicates lower strength but thicker fields may be the way to go.

See here
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacet ... ction.html

[PeZook]

There's also the itty bitty teeny tiny question of the Earth having, you know, an atmosphere. The magnetic field is not the only thing protecting us from cosmic rays.

[Algebraist]

The arrangement of coils NASA are looking at are designed to minimise the magnetic field infringement into the capsule to bring down to a safe level - its a work in progress obviously

[Darth Holbytlan]

Could there be any possibility of an answer less in discrimination, and more in "what we know about long-term effects on isolated hetero couples, versus what we know about homosexual couples"? Of course, there could be absolutely no real difference at all for all I would know; I'm just hunting for the possibility of an explanation that would make sense.

And what do we know about isolated hetero couples that we don't know about homosexual couples? It doesn't seem like we have much information about the long term effects on either of them—especially opposed to that one particular fact we do know about heterosexual couples: their capability to become pregnant. I'm not particularly inclined to give any benefit of the doubt, especially given how common prejudice against homosexuality is.

[DieselJester]

Could there be any possibility of an answer less in discrimination, and more in "what we know about long-term effects on isolated hetero couples, versus what we know about homosexual couples"? Of course, there could be absolutely no real difference at all for all I would know; I'm just hunting for the possibility of an explanation that would make sense.

And what do we know about isolated hetero couples that we don't know about homosexual couples? It doesn't seem like we have much information about the long term effects on either of them—especially opposed to that one particular fact we do know about heterosexual couples: their capability to become pregnant. I'm not particularly inclined to give any benefit of the doubt, especially given how common prejudice against homosexuality is.

If we'd have to choose a couple at all (rather than, ya know, trained specialists for the mission) for this, I'd go with a Homosexual Couple over a Hetero (provided both parties are fertile anyways) one just to prevent the chance of pregnancy while on the mission. While it'd be one for the record books, I don't think that pregnancy would be something that I'd even remotly want to chance on a mission with a 'no abort' option.

[Algebraist]

There's also the itty bitty teeny tiny question of the Earth having, you know, an atmosphere. The magnetic field is not the only thing protecting us from cosmic rays.

Yes for us on earth the atmosphere is more important as protection from cosmic rays. Although the magnetic field does give significant shielding.

We can view the effect at the poles of course where the magnetic field lines don't give the same protection and we see the aurora effect from rays (in particular the solar wind) hitting the atmosphere.

The magnetic field protection of the earth is however a very important one for the ISS and space satellites that dont have atmospheric protection.

[Algebraist]

Could there be any possibility of an answer less in discrimination, and more in "what we know about long-term effects on isolated hetero couples, versus what we know about homosexual couples"? Of course, there could be absolutely no real difference at all for all I would know; I'm just hunting for the possibility of an explanation that would make sense.

And what do we know about isolated hetero couples that we don't know about homosexual couples? It doesn't seem like we have much information about the long term effects on either of them—especially opposed to that one particular fact we do know about heterosexual couples: their capability to become pregnant. I'm not particularly inclined to give any benefit of the doubt, especially given how common prejudice against homosexuality is.

If we'd have to choose a couple at all (rather than, ya know, trained specialists for the mission) for this, I'd go with a Homosexual Couple over a Hetero (provided both parties are fertile anyways) one just to prevent the chance of pregnancy while on the mission. While it'd be one for the record books, I don't think that pregnancy would be something that I'd even remotly want to chance on a mission with a 'no abort' option.

I think you would definitely want trained specialists for such a mission given the cost of it! As such it would much more likely to be a hetero couple (eg homosexual being less than 3% of the population) and being professionals I'm sure they would take every precaution against pregnancy.

[Darth Holbytlan]

There's a big difference between a couple being likely to be heterosexual for statistical reasons and announcing ahead of time that the couple flat out will be hetero. Why rule out any options?

[Lagmonster]

Could there be any possibility of an answer less in discrimination, and more in "what we know about long-term effects on isolated hetero couples, versus what we know about homosexual couples"? Of course, there could be absolutely no real difference at all for all I would know; I'm just hunting for the possibility of an explanation that would make sense.

And what do we know about isolated hetero couples that we don't know about homosexual couples? It doesn't seem like we have much information about the long term effects on either of them—especially opposed to that one particular fact we do know about heterosexual couples: their capability to become pregnant. I'm not particularly inclined to give any benefit of the doubt, especially given how common prejudice against homosexuality is.

I don't actually have any knowledge about isolation effects on humans at all, but I do know this: At some point, someone is going to have to sit down and write out an activity plan to deal with it, and present it to whomever passes for HR on this project. My hunch is that psychologists know a metric shitload more about sustaining heterosexual long-term relations, because we've been studying them in depth since about year zero. Saying "it's just easier to plan for what we know more about" is only my speculation, however.

But the least of my worries would be pregnancy; that's something medical science has had no trouble thwarting no matter how much boning you want to do.

[DieselJester]

If we'd have to choose a couple at all (rather than, ya know, trained specialists for the mission) for this, I'd go with a Homosexual Couple over a Hetero (provided both parties are fertile anyways) one just to prevent the chance of pregnancy while on the mission. While it'd be one for the record books, I don't think that pregnancy would be something that I'd even remotly want to chance on a mission with a 'no abort' option.

I think you would definitely want trained specialists for such a mission given the cost of it! As such it would much more likely to be a hetero couple (eg homosexual being less than 3% of the population) and being professionals I'm sure they would take every precaution against pregnancy.

Oh I would. I would want fully trained specialists for any space mission as opposed to taking a random "couple" off of the streets and then trying to train them for this. I was just talking therotically as if we were forced to take only two people who were in a monogamous relationship, I'd go for a the homosexual couple for the reasons I stated.

But the least of my worries would be pregnancy; that's something medical science has had no trouble thwarting no matter how much boning you want to do.

*shrug* Unless they're both sterile or getting plumbing removed prior to liftoff, I'm skittish on the idea of relying on birth control methods since it only takes one missed pill or whatever to be fertile again. Again, this is assuming that we have to take two people who are in a relationship as this guy obviosuly wants to.

Either way, I don't think that the mission is going to fly for a variety of reasons, the chief one being regarding radiation shielding as has already been discussed.