This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Florida Today Troubling Article by Matt Reed

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
June 25, 2013
Filed under ,

Matt Reed: One is a boondoggle, the other …, Florida Today
A mars mission remains unfunded and biologically impossible for people. And as Dean pointed out, the Space Launch System rocket will carry an Orion capsule that can’t land anywhere.
Marc’s note: Context. Read the above statement and what do you think? Now put it in context with the rest of the editorial. Matt Reed is “Florida Today’s editorial page editor and politically independent columnist.
The article starts with a rant on Senator Rubio’s immigration reform which he says funding could be better used on the Space Coast. He then picks on an article he wrote last week supporting NASA’s asteroid mission and it he seems to just casually throw out the statement above as if it was just a fact and hey that’s one reason we need to do the asteroid mission. For the casual Florida Today reader with little or no knowledge they might take this “fact” at face value. It’s one thing to make a point, it’s another to throw out an inaccurate statement and try to pass it as fact. Florida Today should know better.

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

16 responses to “Florida Today Troubling Article by Matt Reed”

  1. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    This rant has some thought provoking items regarding this country’s priorities all subject to debate but does illustrate political chaos and why it is so difficult to get anything done. Examples,

    “At a time when America must furlough Air Force and Florida National Guard personnel and launch astronauts on Russian rockets, the fence would cost billions of dollars while doing little to stop illegal crossings.”

    and

    “Without the fence, we will continue to expel thousands of foreign graduate students trained in science and engineering at Central Florida universities, hampering innovation and growth.”

    and regarding wildlife (there was a time when Antelope Valley had antelopes but railroad stopped their migration paths):
    “While the fence has deterred wildlife from using traditional migration routes,…”

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      Well I’ll just mention it’s good to hear wildlife come up since I can’t remember hearing it before when talking about the giant fence. We’ve already added plenty of barriers to the wildlife. I don’t have any solution for both of course.

  2. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

    One-quarter of crew’s DNA with be hit by GCR and significant bone loss will occur without mitigation hardware during a one year round trip to Mars. Debate continues on the effects, but the technology to mitigate crew health effects and demonstrate the possibility of a one year trip is not funded. More data in the proper environment (L2) is needed, which is not the Lunar surface (1/6th g and blocks half GCR) nor ISS (earth’s magnetic field blocks the GCR).

    Whether your POV is “impossible” or not, since SLS and Orion
    cannot land anywhere, why not send them to L2, and skip the 2021 Apollo 8 redux, demonstrating that the crew and hardware can survive the one year round trip, starting in shorter durations, to Mars?

    “There is longstanding bipartisan support for a long-term human mission to Mars,” Smith wrote in a letter published Sunday. “Experts have testified that a stepping-stone approach, including a lunar mission, is the most strategic pathway.”

    o Mars- yes, because the technology will create many spinoffs on earth, even without getting there due to funding constraints. A lunar mission–ample funding is first required, but it has no spinoffs with off the shelf SLS/Orion technology; SLS/Orion does nothing for commercial space. Besides, cancel SLS/Orion and one can afford the missions and the launch services. No debate on the fence versus exploration required.

    50B for a fence/security and SLS/Orion over decades…is a pattern emerging here? What other solutions are possible and cheaper?

    Does not the data show that with no jobs available, folks do not cross the border–no fence required, but E-verify is necessary? If they cross the border, but have no E-verify ticket to work, why would they stay?

    One positive for the fence is that those leaving the military would have a job opportunity, but would building a product, say renewable energy, be more beneficial to the country? $50B is quite a few wind turbines, solar cells, etc…

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      More data in the proper environment (L2) is needed

      It would have been easier, and much cheaper, to add a standard instrument package to every planetary probe, including flybys, and planetary lander that’s every been sent out from Earth. With the data from long-term measurements most of the debate would go away because the problem could be quantified.

      If the Grand Tour Voyagers and Cassini alone had been equipped to measure and report back the densities and frequencies of the various threat “rays” I think we’d likely have all the data we’d ever need.

      Or, consider all of the fairings and spent stages that are discarded in space, each on its own trajectory, often heading out to nowhere in particular. We could have put our instrument package on all of those, letting them report back in bursts for as long as on-board power holds out. We could have had data from many different sectors and distances, including close to the Sun..

      Just one more reason why we should be working to an integrated overall plan.

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        The RAD instrument measurements on the Mars Science Lab confirmed that NASA has a good handle on GCR dose. Data on how this dose is reduced by other materials or a magnetic field may help mitigation methods. The plans forward, TMK, are to place a second RAD instrument on ISS and compare them to the deep space and Mars measurements since the earth’s magnetic field shields the ISS.

        The debate or issue then is not the GCR dose (there were no surprises from the recent RAD data), but rather how much increased health risk GCR presents to the crew.

        “Quality factors” are used to convert the GRC measurements to “calculate” an equivalent dose rate to assess additional crew risk.

        The issue is that these are extremely high energy particles and very little data is available to determine these quality factors. IOW, the instrument is measuring what passes through the spacecraft mass, but not the effects on humans. ISS is in the earth’s magnetic field…the human data over the decades is not very applicable. The Apollo program was short duration, with the moon blocking half the GCR because of its large mass.

        The other issue is what additional percent risk to assume. For example, its currently about 3% more risk of cancer above the typical expected cancer rate. In 1975, 1 in 4 humans developed some type of cancer and today its 1 in 3.

        This was discussed before:
        http://nasawatch.com/archiv

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          muomega0,

          My concern is not with GCR specifically, but with the whole spectrum of particle types and frequencies. My biggest concern is that the available data is a drop in the bucket compared to what happens in the universe, yet a great deal of “conclusion” is extrapolated from it.

          Unless we look at dynamic data for evaluation and testing we’re likely to miss what might turn out to be the killer issues. For example, we really need to look at:
          • Changes over time;
          • Changes from place to place;
          • Changes with variation in solar activity (long- and short-term);
          • Changes in trends with frequency.
          And we need to have data for all of the various combinations of changes in these dynamic factors. This means recording a lot of data over extended time periods, which is not what is available now.

          Once we have done enough measurement to properly define “the problem,” then and only then can we start looking at solutions. And that will mean a lot of measuring of primary and secondary levels, across the whole spectrum, for various mitigation proposals.

          I’m not trying to make this a bigger challenge than it actually is. Everything necessary is within our capabilities (I believe), but it is a lot of work and will require a lot of calendar time. And the cost of not doing this task properly will be nothing less than human lives.

          I feel that too many people have jumped straight to thinking they know the final answers based on far from sufficient data. We have the capability and much of it could have been done as a tag-along extra on many missions, but currently we’re still bent over with out shoes on the starting blocks. Extrapolating solutions from theories without the necessary levels of measurement and testing is not science. We need to do better.

      • LPHartswick says:
        0
        0

        That’s an excellent point, but back then people were goal oriented and not thinking strategically. Didn’t one of the Mariner missions serve as an early warning system for Apollo? I believe seeing an article about it a few years ago when it became the oldest active probe; just before NASA broke contact from it permanently. Maybe it wasn’t a Mariner…I’m not sure…it may have been Pioneer 6…but then again I may be becoming senile.

    • se jones says:
      0
      0

      >One-quarter of crew’s DNA with be hit by GCR
      and significant bone loss will occur <

      That’s a non-sequitur
      (not to mention the ~8000 K-40 & C-14 decay events in YOUR body every second on the ground).

      >…(earth’s magnetic field blocks the GCR).<

      NO, it does not.
      ISS crews are classified as “radiation workers” by OSHA standards because of the GCR dose. The solar magnetosphere modulates GCR protons at lower energies,
      but that’s of interest mostly to climatology. The earth’s magnetosphere mitigates the solar wind – mostly, except for the SAA and high latitudes. ISS is in a 52deg orbit, think about it.

      Please don’t make
      things worse with the no-nothing press and public by spouting more no-nothing, environmentalist-class
      misinformation.

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        Exposures on the ISS average 150 mSv per year, although frequent crew rotations minimize individual risk since they do not stay up there a year. Astronauts on Apollo and Skylab missions received on average 1.2 mSv/day and 1.4 mSv/day respectively. so multiply by 365. it would appear that your statement, “no it does not” has no validity.

        More data on quality factors is needed, as mentioned above, to really translate these equivalent does into radiation damage and/or increase cancer risk for long periods of time. As mentioned above and in the link below: “The conversion from charged-particle energies and
        masses to biological damage involves “a high degree
        of uncertainty,” Zeitlin says, especially when it comes to the heavy
        nuclei
        of galactic cosmic rays.

        Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century. Earth is in no great peril from the cosmic rays. The planet’s atmosphere and magnetic field combine to form a formidable shield against space radiation, protecting humans on the surface.

        Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding.

        Galactic cosmic rays create a continuous radiation dose throughout the Solar System that increases during solar minimum and decreases during solar maximum (solar activity). Some feel that even more measurements of the GCR flux is needed to ensure there are no surprises, e.g. its not continuous and steady.

        Except for the very highest energy galactic cosmic rays, the radius of gyration in the Earth’s magnetic field
        is small enough to ensure that they are deflected away from Earth. Missions beyond low Earth orbit (ISS is located in LEO), leave the protection of the geomagnetic
        field.

        http://www.nasa.gov/topics/

        http://www.sciencemag.org/c… Radiation Will Make Astronauts’ Trip to Mars Even Riskier

        GCR has no affect on climate change, despite assertions to the contrary.

        • se jones says:
          0
          0

          >…(earth’s
          magnetic field blocks the GCR).<

          NO, it does not.

          If the earth’s magnetic field blocks GCRs, what exactly to you suppose the AMS
          on the ISS is observing? Angels on the head of a pin?

          No AMS “sees” relativistic positrons which have enough mass/energy to
          plow right through our magnetosphere. Of course relativistic protons & high
          Z GCRs plow through even easier.

          The AMS will be joined on ISS next year (or ’15) by the Extreme Universe Space
          Observatory (EUSO) which will look down at air showers in the atmosphere.
          “Look down” as in below the ISS’s orbit.

          The NASA thing you quoted is poorly written and misleading (in places) & the
          paper in AAAS Science also has some issues. I know the authors of the AAAS paper
          so I gave them hell. Please…even the 1968 Mars ’68 mission design had a solar
          “storm shelter”, let’s not pretend we’re going to Mars in a naked Orion capsule.

          At one time, solar protons AND GCRs were lumped together as just “cosmic
          rays” (there is some overlap in rare CMEs & the lower end of the GCR spectrum).

          For astronautics it’s useful and common to separate the (mostly) low energy
          solar protons from GCRs for engineering design.

          A “storm shelter” made from the crews water, food & waste is
          practical for CME events but GCRs must be taken as a calculated risk.

          Bottom line:
          space cadets, stop saying the ISS is “protected” from cosmic rays by the Earth’s
          magnetic field. It ain’t so.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            The confusing appears to result from one’s perspective: that of the crew versus that of the ‘particle’.

            Cosmic rays originate from outside the galaxy, are usually of much higher energy, and have a different chemistry than SPEs–those from inside the solar system. GCR particles were probably accelerated within the last few million years by ‘magnetic fields’ of supernova remnants, but not the explosion itself.

            GCR can be extremely damaging to materials and biology because they possess high ionizing power.

            Since the particles are charged, recall they were accelerated, they can be deflected by a magnetic field. Two Van Allen belts exist. The GCR and SPE particles are held in place by the Earth’s magnetic field, and extending from 1,000 to 60,000 km above the surface, and the radiation levels vary. ISS-300 to 400km, quite low, and in a higher magnetic field, with a significant radius of lower magnetic field above ISS.

            Think of an umbrella (of various effectiveness) in the rain, where the rain is deflected away from the crew underneath, similar to a particle deflected by a magnetic field. Depending on the field intensity and distance from the crew, the crew may or not be hit by the particle.

            Now consider that radiation can pass through materials. Arbitrarily break the material into thin layers. The first ‘thin’ layer degrades the energy of the high energy particles, but creates more lower energy particles through the interaction. Hence for each layer, there is a cutoff energy where the particles, which may or may not have changed, penetrate the shelter. If the material is very thick, multiple thin layers, like the earth or moon, then the particles are almost completely absorbed, through a complex interaction.

            So did the umbrella ‘block’ the rain or deflect the rain? Or did the material block the particles or absorb the particles? If some of the particles were deflected and absorbed, perhaps changing they were prevented from hitting the crew, so could one just say simply that they were blocked?

            The earth’s magnetic field (and atmosphere if applicable) prevents GCR from reaching the crew to various degrees depending on the altitude and latitude above the earth’s surface, the radiation flux varies throughout the earth’s magnetic field, strong at lower orbits(where ISS is located) than the high orbits.

            One thing is clear: treating the higher energy particles (most of the GCR) the same as the lower energy particles (mostly SPE) is based only on Earth radiation data that does not included GCR( because the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere presents a formidable challenge to GRC).

            Hence the conversion from charged-particle energies and masses to biological damage involves “a high degree of uncertainty,” Zeitlin says, especially when it comes to the heavy nuclei of galactic cosmic rays.

            Because passive absorber mass grows to 100s of tons of mass for the same effective dose rate as ton or so of hyrbrid active magnetic shield + absrober, why not fund the same hybrid approach used by earth? it is quite illogical. Further, start to research and understand the real impacts of GCR on crew health in the proper environment.

            So the word impossible translates into how much mass (and hence cost) versus risk is built into the architecture.

            The good news is that rather than send Orion to Mars, save the 20,000 kg by parking a lighter crew earth/desent vehicle and apply that mass to the hybrid shielding. To pay for the radiation studies and demonstrations in the *proper* environment, cancel both SLS/Orion, and do not have to debate on fences.

          • se jones says:
            0
            0

            >>The confusing appears to result from one’s perspective: that of the crew versus that of the ‘particle’.<<

            No, my perspective is that of an engineer trying to design crewed Mars missions within a reasonable time & budget, and avoid the canard of “more study” on the Moon, L2, Asteroids and so on and on and on.

            You’re just skimming stuff on the internet looking for things to back-up your absolutist statements interspersed with other people’s stuff that you copy & paste.

            Look; the ultra-high energy heavy ions that can penetrate a spacecraft’s hull (including ISS) are what are of interest in this context. These are NOT “held in place” by the earth’s magnetic field. Their paths may be deflected to various degrees, but the fact that the ISS crew receives a substantial dose AND we can observe the air showers from these high energy particles (and gamma rays) on the ground means the earth’s magnetosphere is not “holding them in place”.

            Hell, go to the Exploratorium in San Francisco and stand in front of the huge spark chamber for a graphic demonstration.

            You say >>”why not fund the same hybrid approach used by earth?”<<

            Another weird statement. If you had active shielding around a s/c sufficient to deflect the dangerous high energy GCR, then you wouldn’t need ANY passive shielding to protect against Solar CRs.
            The trouble is, active shielding will require fundamental breakthroughs in high temp superconductors, power supplies and cooling.
            And, active shielding itself introduces a substantial risk to the crew. Any failure of the magnetic field generating sub-system will induce a near instantaneous rate-of-change electric field in the s/c which could damage the structure, electronics and probably kill the crew from the secondary “shrapnel” from the trapped ions in the ‘shield’.

            The ultimate point is: ISS is exposed to the highest energy GCR flux (except those blocked by the bulk of the planet) and we have decades of data on crew heath to draw on.
            It is misleading and wrong to flatly state “ISS is protected” when that’s only partly true and true of only lower energy ions which we can shield against with a “storm shelter” during Mars transit and surface opps.

        • se jones says:
          0
          0

          >>GCR has
          no effect on climate change, despite assertions to the contrary<<

          Of course they do. How could it be otherwise? The only uncertainty is (as is usual in science) how much?

          One of the LHC’s lesser known experiments which has been eclipsed by the Higgs
          discovery is the Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets – CLOUD experiment.

          CLOUD is gathering real data on GCRs & cloud physics as opposed to the quasi-religious
          dogma of environmentalists.

          You can read about CLOUD in Physics Today or the CERN main site.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Since 1990, galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased – “the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures”
            here is one source.
            http://www.skepticalscience

            The theory is that GCR’s seed clouds, and more clouds would block the sun, but of course the annual average temperature is increasing rather than decreasing even though the GRC is increasing.

            CO2 reduces the amount of heat that the earth gives back to deep space. The CO2 affect has been masked by pollution particles interacting with clouds to reflect more sunlight, along with other interactions, or the global average increase would be higher. The good news is that all the scientists agree that, even with uncertainty, the trend is clear. Unfortunately, it appears that it may be too late to have any impact on the expect increase in temperature (on average).

            read more about CLOUD from CERN.

            http://home.web.cern.ch/abo

  3. rsf7 says:
    0
    0

    They know that Orion is not intended to land anywhere, right? It’s intended to remain in orbit while a lander that attaches to it is deployed to the surface. This is the paradigm regardless of destination.

  4. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    Both the border fence and SLS are theater. They let people think they are doing something (stopping illegal immigration or going to Mars) without really accomplishing anything.