Would the risk of an astronaut in space be greater than a fellow human on Earth?
827432
Space is a unique environment. Orbital velocities alone provide risks of collisions with dust as well as many kinds of Solar radiation.\n\nAn astronaut would probably not encounter a solar flare directly. However the radiation and ionic streams that are streaming out from these storms often pass by Earth.\n\nWe, on Earth, are protected from most Solar radiation. We experience it as the Aurora or Northern Lights. On Earth we experience the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. Most radiation, however, is screened out by the magnetosphere or atmosphere before it can reach the Earth's surface, and the life thereon.\n\nAn astronaut is only protected by his vehicle and his clothing or space suit. These are good at protecting astronauts, but astronauts are still in far more danger than his fellow humans on Earth.\n\n;-D We should all be thankful that courageous men and women do brave deeds that benefit all mankind.
87341
Short answer:\n\nUnmanned space exploration is more cost effective, efficient, and lower risk. We can always build new robots, and we can send them over longer distances than people (at least initially).\n\nManned space exploration would have a better chance to capture public support. A human mind in control of a space mission might see or intuit things a computer guided sensor might not, and it might react creatively in an emergency. Ultimately, we'll place more value on manned spaceflight. We've already put robots on Mars, but the first human on Mars will be a much bigger deal. Sending humans through space safely seems to be one of the goals of space exploration.
988111
NO , I like it here on Earth. I don't even like the loss  of environmental control on airplanes. I'm not afraid to fly in them, I just don't like to although I always enjoy the veiw when there is one. The food is better on Earth too. If I was fgoing into space though, I would bring 12 cute female massage therapists. If they were going, I change my mind. I'd go too.
169934
Absolutely! I would hope since the previous trip ended in disaster, NASA would be extra-cautious. It would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that I couldn't pass up.
825115
most astronauts are military so they get their regular pay plus flight pay and maybe hazardous pay which amounts to a couple hundred a month. they get very little compared to a civilian airline pilot
393785
Mir isn't in orbit anymore, it was decommissioned and burned up in the atmosphere in March, 2001.\n\nAn astronaut, whether in Mir or in the new International Space Station (ISS) receives about 1 millisievert/day (mSv/day) or 0.365 Sv/yr.  Normal overall radiation dose for someone on earth is about 3.5 mSV/year.  4 Sv kills most people, 2 starts giving you serious health problems.  Note that different parts of your body are affected differently, so a safe dosage for your skin may not be safe for your sex organs.  Also, any high exposure increases your long-term risk of cancer, so you may be fine after a 2 Sv exposure in one day but die from cancer 5 years later.\n\nNote that radiation in space is somewhat different than radiation on earth.  It's all "radiation", but on Earth, heavy particles are typically stopped by the atmosphere.  On a space station, much of the radiation comes from "spalling", where a heavy particle or cosmic ray hits the aluminum spacecraft body and causes a release of secondary particles.  Much of the space station radiation is from these secondary particles.  Any aluminum-body station (and that's all of them) has this same problem, so ISS is just as bad as Mir.  \n\nAttempts have been made to provide additional shielding using hydrogen-containing materials such as polyethylene. In the ISS, these attempts haven't been successful.
245222
NASA is concerned about high-energy space radiation (X-rays, gamma rays, and especially cosmic rays) in that region when considering a manned mission to Mars (see ref.). But there would be equal concern about the same radiation in other regions for other missions; i.e., there is nothing unique about the radiation in the Earth-Mars region.
83781
No oxygen in space. Need to bring or make your own.\nNo gravity or very weak affects the human body in many ways, one big is it weakens ones bones(and muscles).
347841
The astronauts would be in zero-G for almost the entire trip causing the negative effects of weighlessness on their bodies.\n\nThe accereration of the spacecraft would indeed negate the problems with Zero-G by temporarily creating artifical gravity.  The problem lies in the fact that with the limited amount of fuel on the spacecraft, acceleration would only occur while the the engine was on. (a very short time with a chemical rocket)   \n\nOne solution would be to use a a drive that will burn during the entire trip.  One such drive is an ion drive (used on the recent Deep-Space One spacecraft to visit a local asteriod).  This drive would acclerate for most of the trip there creating a small amount of artifical gravity.
68910
Yes, in the shuttle. But out in space, I believe the vacuum of space would suck the fart out before they got a chance to even think about expelling it. Plus I would think if they were trying to fart in open space, they would have other things to worry about...
1018278
that would depend on the velocity of the craft, the velocity the at you were pushed out with respect to the velocity of the craft, and what near by celestial or terrestrial bodies were near, to influence your movement with their gravitational pull...  if you wre set outside a ship, with zero velocity, and left, out in deep space... you would remain essentially motionless... if the same were done to you near the earth, you wold fall to the earth.. if you were pushed out the side door of the space shuttle while it orbited... you would most likely orbit several time before your orbit decayed and you would have a incredibly painful reentry... as short as the pain might be...
73440
The Astronauts were exposed to the radiation not only \nas a consequence of pasing through the Van Allen Belt \nbut also being exposed to the radiation from the Sun.\nThe amount of radiation would have certainly been lethal had they spent more time in space than they did.\nBut for the up to eight days the Astronauts spent\nout of the protective cocoon of Earth's natural \nradiation shield the astronauts were not in any real danger. On the other hand,the danger of a sudden major solar flare-up resulting in radiation exposure so intense to have killed the astronauts in space was  always a possibility.
994993
I woke up to a news report on the radio about how NASA had lost contact with their shuttle, and there had been reports of falling and burning debris. I was sad.\nHonestly... We should be surprised that things don't go wrong more often. Launching into space is a delicate and dangerous venture. There are far more people who are killed each year by toothpicks than die for the purpose of space exploration. This is something we should be proud of.
805561
What would be the point?  Getting all the equipment up there for such a shield would require far more mass and effort than just throwing up some extra metal that would absorb the radiations.\n\nThe only time astronauts are at any serious level of risk is during an EVA -- so if there's a major flare, all they need do is scuttle back inside and wait it out.  Their typical exposure is not much more than you'd get from a medical X-ray . . .
406483
Not in our lifetime but in a million years, maybe.  It all depends on our evolution and the understanding of Universal Laws.  We have to be more spiritual as a people to care for life both human and the planet.  As we evolve at a more mature, responsible, and evolved rate, we can belong to the Cosmic Family from other worlds.  Together, worlds can achieve the advances for deep space travel.  There are many dangers out in space we are not aware and must have the cooperation of our Cosmic Family......Hope this helps.
523318
Pushing towards any frontier or advancement can lead to death.  Statistically, you are far more likely to die riding a bus than on any of NASA's space systems.\n\nThe problem is that everyone expects 100% safety and zero deaths from a risky endeavor like space travel.  If our ancestors had canceled any attempts to make advances because of a few deaths, all of us would still be riding horses or walking.  Ships sunk and people died.  Cars crashed and people died.  Planes failed and people died.  Yet they still pushed on.\n\nThe reason that NASA can't send people into space right now is because of politicians that hop in front of T.V. cameras to decry NASA's failures without mentioning their overwhelming successes.\n\nThe Shuttles have flown 114 missions carrying 703 people into space and we have only lost 14 people. It is a tragedy that they died but they died believing in what they did and were willing to take the risks.\n\nCreating a new space program won't make a difference.  Spaceflight is risky and creating a new program won't make it any less so.
643880
Most of the orbits are set (initial point and direction) so that they don't crash into each other, but even if they didn't, the amount of surface area (of satellites at the same altitude) is so great that there is an extremely small chance that they would crash into each other even if they were set randomly.  Imagine a thousand people placed randomly around the world, blindfolded and told to walk around.  Think of how low the probability that two people would run into each other would be.