If an astronaut in a spaceship is moving close to the speed of light for a year...

He just wants more pictures of the rocket in OP's pic

My guess, and I don't want to calculate it (do it yourself), is that the amount of radiation is proportional to the time in transit, but the deadliness is proportional to the lorentz factor. So maybe there is a sweet spot between moving slowly and super fast where it makes the least damage.

Pretty sure interstellar medium gets blueshifted into gamma radiation

Hm. Similar to, If I have to run from this building to that one during a downpour, do I get wetter running fast, or walking?

The difference is, the rain puzzle has a certain distance. Yours has exposes over the amount of time, but the nature of the radiation shifts. I would prefer to be exposed to more low-level radiation over the same amount of time.

It depends on how close to C you get, but ultimately you will get the same amount of exposure from say a year relative to you in travel to a few minutes relative to you. Once the background starlight becomes ionizing frequencies, I'd imagine health problems would start appearing.

If somebody lights that, she's gonna burn her cheeks.

>carmen electra

Thank you for this throwback

Epic Veeky Forums

Rain doesn't get blue shifted, friendo. The distance in the case is the same, only speed difference matters. If you travel at relativistic speeds you won't get "bumped" into more photons than if you were to travel with nowadays rocket speeds, because the photons themselves travel at c. Blueshift is the only thing that matters here.

Hm. Hadn't thought of that. So... I guess you get more radiation than if moving at "regular" speed.