4 comments

  • ericd 17 minutes ago
    This seems sort of interesting as a sort of emergency backup, but it seems like the real solution for any sort of long distance/long duration in space is just making mass to orbit dramatically cheaper and shielding the spacecraft.
  • bcraven 20 minutes ago
    “It still gets people surprised,” Milstein says. “Everybody asks, what about the head? But we’re actually able to reduce the effective dose by 60 percent without protecting the head, the arms, or even the legs.”

    Whilst I understand the maths here, I can see why someone would be nervous!

    • weinzierl 1 minute ago
      You need to protect anything with relatively fast dividing cells best because this is where the cancer risk is highest. The brain with its slow dividing cells and fast killing tumors is the last thing to protect.
    • antonvs 4 minutes ago
      It's ok, everything except your brain will be protected from radiation!
  • alehlopeh 54 minutes ago
    The use of “we” in this headline is really jarring.
    • ButlerianJihad 28 minutes ago
      We Flew to the Moon and Back So You Wouldn't Have To!
      • antonvs 4 minutes ago
        You're welcome!
  • TheDudeMan 1 hour ago
    Why wouldn't it?
    • rtkwe 1 hour ago
      The difficulty is making it protective but light enough to not significantly hinder the spacecraft or person wearing it, all of which is covered in the article.
    • solarengineer 1 hour ago
      Poor design, flawed assumptions, manufacturing defects, inability to bear the gravitational and rocket launch forces, inability of the jacket to last the duration of the radiation exposure - these are some reasons that come to my mind on why a radiation-blocking vest wouldn't have worked for the journey to the moon and back (i.e. your question "Why wouldn't it?".)