Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ...
by SolarNet on Saturday October 22, 2016 @02:47AM
(#12767569)
I mean authors have been using that idea for years. The Red Mars trilogy for example (which was an at the time scientifically accurate example of mars colonization).
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ...
by wott on Saturday October 22, 2016 @08:49AM
(#12768458)
Each of the stuff for which we read here people jumping and yelling "visionary!" "revolutionary!" "unforeseen breakthrough!" "brand new plan!" "disruptive improvement!", has been dealt with dozen of times in hundreds of SF novels in the last 80 years, which explored all the possible problems (problems are a more exciting matter for a novel than everything-goes-fine-and-as-planned).
But since for most of those people, SF and anticipation is limited to Star-Wars + a couple of other movies/series and super-hero block-busters, they are not aware, and all these stuff appear as genuinely unprecedented technical and sociological thought breakthrough.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ...
by snrplfth on Saturday October 22, 2016 @01:42AM
(#12767400)
Yes, I expect that more advanced active shielding will eventually be developed - particularly since you can detect solar flare events before the radiation arrives.
The challenge with flares is that the radiation can come in from multiple directions, so a cylindrical water container that people can pack into is probably a better defense than just the bulk of the engines.
I don't know that they'll have this on the first trips there, but I'd guess that magnetic shields might eventually be a standard component:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3772/how-much-power...