argument top image

Do we need manned space flights? Show more Show less
Back to question

Seeing a man on the moon was one of the coolest things of the 1960's. Since then, shuttle have been sending many, many people up to complete missions. These are costly and incredibly dangerous. Are manned missions economically viable or is it more effective to focus on less expensive drone missions?

No, space flights are too dangerous Show more Show less

The risks of a manned expedition are too high to make it viable
< (3 of 3)

The effects of a long term exposure to radiation

Astronauts will not likely be protected neither in the voyager neither in the trip nor in the permanence on a planet
< (2 of 3) Next argument >

Context

During space segments of a mission and also on planet surface (like Mars) astronauts might not be adequately protected from radiation.

The Argument

So far the only human mission outside low Earrth orbit have been Apollo missions to the moon. Radiation shields on the vessel might not be feasible. Further on planet like Mars there is not a magnetic field that protect us like Earth's Van Allen radiation belt. There is no sufficioent prediction on the amount of radiation to which astronaut will be exposed

Counter arguments

Some reasonable measures can be put in place. Water can be used as a shield on the vessel. On Mars surface astronatus could live in an under-ground habitat and use terrain itself as a shield Some estimation shows radiation to be at an acceptable level.

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

This page was last edited on Saturday, 15 Feb 2020 at 09:28 UTC

Explore related arguments