Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (54) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84359 
Subject: Re: Richard Feynman explains why Mars a one way trip
Date: 04/05/26 8:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 11
1. Plenty

What, exactly?

2. Aerogels are cool. And very versatile. Ask yourself what problem radiation shielding represents to a space vehicle. One must balance protection effectiveness with weight (because every gram matters when launching things).

I have no doubt that they are cool and versatile. But cosmic rays have different physics than other types of radiation.

The problem that radiation shielding for cosmic rays presents to a spaceship is that they can't be blocked with shielding. They are so high-energy that they blast through everything - and when they do interact with something, that interaction creates a secondary radiation emission that is also very dangerous. Ironically, if you provide more shielding it becomes more dangerous for the occupants inside, because the damage from the secondary radiation increases faster than the reduced exposure from the cosmic rays. We can't shield against cosmic rays with any currently-existing technology, nor are there any real prospects for developing a material that can do so over the next few decades.

3. And finally, we can definitely tell who’s a problem solver vs. somebody who points them out, then jumps up and down.

Solving problems isn't always just a matter of optimism vs. pessimism. Some problems simply can't be solved with then-existing technology. You couldn't have launched a space mission in 1880, no matter how much you might have wanted to. You couldn't develop self-driving cars in 1968, no matter what. The general level of human knowledge wasn't far enough along.

We're almost certainly at a similar position when it comes to long-term settlements outside the magnetosphere. We do not have any technology that can possibly provide both: i) earth-level gravity; and ii) protection against cosmic rays. You can get gravity by spinning in a spaceship, but we don't know how to protect a spaceship from cosmic rays. You can get protection from cosmic rays by being deep underground, but we don't know how to generate gravity under those conditions. These are not "we don't know how" like we didn't know how to develop velcro before we did it - these are "we don't know how" in the sense that nothing we know about the physics of the material world suggests a possible solution at current levels of knowledge about the universe.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (54) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community