Re: Shielding spacecraft against cosmic radiation

On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:04:17 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <lun8vido07cnl5t4n7t7gl08e3sbinqpr3@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:42:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

>
On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:35:27 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <eb58vidh7uivropd4lb3tjbf5iam87cid2@4ax.com>:
>

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.

>
Did you actually READ the
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-insight-life.html
link?
It is all very simple.

>
Too simple. It's not DNA, not cells, it's unlikely to continue
replicating outside the lab, and, being a lab experiment, is
"intelligent design." Well, moderately intelligent.
>
Lots of chemical reactions can be forced to replicate in the lab.
>

Life is everywhere buzzing
just like electrons around atoms
>
The religious leaders have various routines to keep their power and palaces,
suck your money and wash you brain and force you into obedience
Take a step back.
The rain-dances ended when rain-radar was more accurate
Our lifeform has evolved something called 'ego' to protect ourself.
We are not that more complex than that sunshade with photo sensor that has a voice added
so when the sun shines it says 'sun', I am closing, and if no sun, I am opening.
That, in short, is all consciousness is.
Never the less we are all connected, these days via radio and teefee too.
Drop the mystics
>
>

>
Blind faith hand-waving about random mutation and selection is mystic.
Conjecturing about an actual, unlikely but plausible, origin of life
is not.
>
One big problem with accounting for DNA life is that an entire class
of possible mechanisms is sneered at because considering them invokes
the fear of drifting even slightly towards religion, and we can't
allow that. You do that, mocking anything that you think might drift
in that direction. Dawkins said that he was a capital-A Atheist first,
and everything else flowed from that.
>
He was capital-B Boring too, as compulsive believers tend to be.

Well no use educting the brain washed.
Best of luck special heap of cells.
It is not bad that 'I' do not know what you babble about., much worse is that 'you' do not know.