Re: Shielding spacecraft against cosmic radiation

On 16/03/2024 2:11 am, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:11:29 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 3/15/24 10:35, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:28:39 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:38:47 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jl@650pot.com> wrote in <s3d6vi95gfrbs6omoula55soaktalpggru@4ax.com>:
>

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:46:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:13:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <in46vipa7a3eb6q7au6alobve5vfmv5jso@4ax.com>:
>

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 06:13:43 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:54:24 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <ae13viptr1sskaqq1h2ru1j9i85sdecfrd@4ax.com>:
>

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:09:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:18:18 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jl@650pot.com> wrote in <34h1vihp32geb2olkcscfksbr8k0bdgdmu@4ax.com>:
>

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:22:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

Shields up: New ideas might make active shielding viable
Active shielding was first proposed in the '60s. We’re finally close to making it work.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/03/shields-up-new-ideas-might-make-active-shielding-viable/
>
bit of static oelectricity, 1 MV ?

>
That's all absurd, cramming a crew into a tiny dark cylinder, deep
inside tons of magnets, to reduce their radiation exposure a little.

>
Yes that may be more dangerus, tha tI why I like the elctrostatic solution.
>
>

Space is not people-friendly. Earth is.
>
Traveling to or living on Mars woud be lethal. Living on the moon
would be bad too.

>
Maybe we could convert some comet, live inside it,
use its material for power water and  shelter
and put an engine on it and start interstellar travel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua

>
You go first.

>
Oh I would not mind flying the comet thing, would want to have a say in the design and food chosen though.
but it will take generations to reach any target destination.
So you have to bring whole families ,
or as things go now, just some skin and have a computah hatch you
and teach you when growing up near the destination.
Makes you wonder if the first life on earth was brought here in a similar way
(circular reasoning).

>
Earth is too good to be an accident, and our life form is too complex
to have evolved from inorganics. Other civiizations in the universe
have probably advanced for billions of years. So it's likely that
Earth and DNA-based life were designed, maybe as a high school science
project. I give it a B-.

>
Well I won't attack your religious beliefs

>
I expressed no religious beliefs, and it's good that you wouldn't
attack any.
>
RNA World is a religious belief. Concensus and faith without evidence.
>
>

Just watched some news story where a sort of computer robot was teaching kids...
Again, an other science program today on TV about planets: all sort of basic chemistry was found
on some moons and asteroids.

>
Sure. Chemicals are not life, as a junk box full of parts is not a
working electronic instrument.
>
>

They did a testing in the lab and made RNA from just basic chemicals added some heat cycling and dry soak cycle
like you will find on planets (sun, tides):
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-insight-life.html
>
we are just a chemical reaction really.
>

>
We are an astoundingly complex structure that uses chemicals and
quantum mechanics. At least I am.

>
from elementary particles to atoms to molecules to self-replicating RNA (check)
from RNA to DNA and ever more complex forms like us (check)
Readup on Darwin
:-)

>
Read up on the ways our cells operate and reproduce. It's astounding.
>
Darwin was very smart, but he had no idea how cells work. I think that
if he had, he'd have been skeptical of random evolution and selection
as our origin.

>
And we are skeptical of your intelligent design stance. For that
matter, there are quite a few blunders in living beings that an
intelligent designer wouldn't have made.

 What you call my "stance" is one conjecture. I have others that you'd
approve of even less.

Your stance is one of incorrigible ignorance. You have the same problem with climate change.

Our cells are extraordinary, so their creation might have been an
extraordinary process. Refuse to think about possibilities if that's
your style.

Our cells are very ordinary. There are lots of them around.
The origin of the first self-replicating cell was probably equally ordinary, and there were probably a lot of different solutions that all more or less worked, but Darwinian selection got rid of all but the best solution.

There are youtube videos about cell replication that are mind
boggling. It doesn't work until a zillion fiendshly complex things all
work, and the cell defines them for itself.

They do now.

Thinking about possibilities helps electronic design too.

Not that you show much sign of ever having done it. The circuits you boast about don't come with any mention of the next-best solution.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney