A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Radiation shield.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 31st 04, 08:04 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Radiation shield.

Not trolling, just wondering. One of the biggest problems with a mission
to mars or anywhere else is solar radiation. The earth is protected by the
van-allen belt. So best way I could thing of that would be light-weight
would be a magnetic-shield type generator on the ship itself. Would be very
huge so not really plausible. Then I thought, why couldn't you line the hull
of the ship with super-conductive wiring of sorts. each would generate a
small magnetic bubble around the wire, each wire re-enforcing the one next
to it. Problems of keeping it cool like on earth I would think would be
easier in space due to the fact that it's already pretty cold in space. A
nice side effect of using this as a shield as far as I can see would be the
fact that it could also be used as energy storage.

So, what you think? Just curious, I understand most people in this group
are probably smarter than me as far as this sort of thing goes. ;-)


  #2  
Old October 31st 04, 08:59 PM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Not trolling, just wondering. One of the biggest problems with a mission
to mars or anywhere else is solar radiation. The earth is protected by the
van-allen belt.


The Earth is protected primarily by the atmosphere and
secondarily by the magnetic field. The interaction
between the Solar wind and the magnetic field creates the
Van Allen Belts, but they are just a side effect.


So best way I could thing of that would be light-weight
would be a magnetic-shield type generator on the ship itself. Would be very
huge so not really plausible. Then I thought, why couldn't you line the hull
of the ship with super-conductive wiring of sorts. each would generate a
small magnetic bubble around the wire, each wire re-enforcing the one next
to it. Problems of keeping it cool like on earth I would think would be
easier in space due to the fact that it's already pretty cold in space. A
nice side effect of using this as a shield as far as I can see would be the
fact that it could also be used as energy storage.

So, what you think? Just curious, I understand most people in this group
are probably smarter than me as far as this sort of thing goes. ;-)


This is workable but difficult. Perhaps in the future
it could be used. A proper radiation "storm shelter"
using water as shielding works well enough for the near
future. You're going to have water along anyway, by
simply arranging it appropriately you can create a
radiation shield.
  #3  
Old November 5th 04, 05:39 AM
John Schilling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

writes:

Not trolling, just wondering. One of the biggest problems with a mission
to mars or anywhere else is solar radiation. The earth is protected by the
van-allen belt. So best way I could thing of that would be light-weight
would be a magnetic-shield type generator on the ship itself. Would be very
huge so not really plausible. Then I thought, why couldn't you line the hull
of the ship with super-conductive wiring of sorts. each would generate a
small magnetic bubble around the wire, each wire re-enforcing the one next
to it. Problems of keeping it cool like on earth I would think would be
easier in space due to the fact that it's already pretty cold in space. A
nice side effect of using this as a shield as far as I can see would be the
fact that it could also be used as energy storage.


So, what you think? Just curious, I understand most people in this group
are probably smarter than me as far as this sort of thing goes. ;-)



*Solar* radiation is not actually that much of a problem for space flight.
The sort of radiation the Sun puts out on a normal basis, is not energetic
enough to penetrate the skin of any reasonable spacecraft. Solar flares
and similar events are associated with intense, lethal radiation, but this
lasts only a few hours and can be detected at least half an hour in advance.
So retreating to a small, shielded enclosure for the duration is an quite
reasonable solution. And the level of shielding required, is fairly modest.
Just packing all your crew's food and drinking water around yhe shelter,
for example, would suffice.

Somewhat more worrisome is *cosmic* radiation. This is much more energetic,
requiring something like half a meter of lead to stop, and it is a steady
bombardment rather than a series of predictable bursts. If you can't shield
your entire habitable volume with that half-meter of lead or the equivalent,
you just have to take it. And while it is not intense enough to be an acute
hazard, a year's exposure would be associated with a ~3% increase in lifetime
cancer risk.

So we'd like to block the cosmic radiation if we could.

Magnetic shielding has been proposed as a means of doing this, but cosmic
ray energies are sufficiently high that it takes either a very large or a
very strong magnetic field to provide effective shielding. Larger and/or
more intense than can be generated by even superconducting magnets of
reasonable size and weight, using present materials.

It's a good idea, but before its time.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *


  #4  
Old November 5th 04, 02:59 PM
Matthew Hagston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
writes:

Not trolling, just wondering. One of the biggest problems with a

mission
to mars or anywhere else is solar radiation. The earth is protected by

the
van-allen belt. So best way I could thing of that would be light-weight
would be a magnetic-shield type generator on the ship itself. Would be

very
huge so not really plausible. Then I thought, why couldn't you line the

hull
of the ship with super-conductive wiring of sorts. each would generate a
small magnetic bubble around the wire, each wire re-enforcing the one

next
to it. Problems of keeping it cool like on earth I would think would be
easier in space due to the fact that it's already pretty cold in space. A
nice side effect of using this as a shield as far as I can see would be

the
fact that it could also be used as energy storage.


So, what you think? Just curious, I understand most people in this

group
are probably smarter than me as far as this sort of thing goes. ;-)



*Solar* radiation is not actually that much of a problem for space flight.
The sort of radiation the Sun puts out on a normal basis, is not energetic
enough to penetrate the skin of any reasonable spacecraft. Solar flares
and similar events are associated with intense, lethal radiation, but this
lasts only a few hours and can be detected at least half an hour in

advance.
So retreating to a small, shielded enclosure for the duration is an quite
reasonable solution. And the level of shielding required, is fairly

modest.
Just packing all your crew's food and drinking water around yhe shelter,
for example, would suffice.

Somewhat more worrisome is *cosmic* radiation. This is much more

energetic,
requiring something like half a meter of lead to stop, and it is a steady
bombardment rather than a series of predictable bursts. If you can't

shield
your entire habitable volume with that half-meter of lead or the

equivalent,
you just have to take it. And while it is not intense enough to be an

acute
hazard, a year's exposure would be associated with a ~3% increase in

lifetime
cancer risk.

So we'd like to block the cosmic radiation if we could.

Magnetic shielding has been proposed as a means of doing this, but cosmic
ray energies are sufficiently high that it takes either a very large or a
very strong magnetic field to provide effective shielding. Larger and/or
more intense than can be generated by even superconducting magnets of
reasonable size and weight, using present materials.

It's a good idea, but before its time.

Well crap, if it's only about an increase of ~3% risk then it seems like
your risk of getting cancer in space is much less than living in the
polution infested planet in which we are currently living. But that's a
whole different subject. ;-) Another more off the wall question, could
magentic waves propell you through space?
--
Matthew Hagston
Hungates Creative Toys and Hobbies
........ http://www.hungates.com


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *




  #5  
Old November 6th 04, 01:00 AM
sanman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Matthew Hagston" wrote in message link.net...
Well crap, if it's only about an increase of ~3% risk then it seems like
your risk of getting cancer in space is much less than living in the
polution infested planet in which we are currently living. But that's a
whole different subject. ;-) Another more off the wall question, could
magentic waves propell you through space?
--
Matthew Hagston
Hungates Creative Toys and Hobbies
........ http://www.hungates.com


Hey dude, check out this site:

http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html

They talk about making a magnetic plasma bubble around your ship to
filter out radiation. Because plasma is low density, you can make your
bubble kilometers in diameter. You just need enough power to sustain
it. Perhaps the radiation could supply some of that power?
  #6  
Old November 9th 04, 07:10 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Schilling" wrote in message
...

Solar flares
and similar events are associated with intense, lethal radiation, but this
lasts only a few hours and can be detected at least half an hour in

advance.

Could you clarify this. I understood that peak radiation occurs in a short
period but that increased radiation can be present for a longer period even
days. Also, what infrastructure would be needed to provide detection,
verification and notification to travellers with a half hour advance
warning. I understood that minutes warning was the more likely scenario and
that is assuming a successful detection with significant infrastructure.

So retreating to a small, shielded enclosure for the duration is an quite
reasonable solution. And the level of shielding required, is fairly

modest.
Just packing all your crew's food and drinking water around yhe shelter,
for example, would suffice.


Of course if your talking about a few food bars and a couple of bags of
water for the trip to the moon this is highly unlikely to offer any real
protection. Additionally, given these are consumables, wouldnt you also need
to incorporate your waste streams into such a protection, otherwise your
likely to be on a ever increasing radiation environment as you consume food
and water.

Somewhat more worrisome is *cosmic* radiation. This is much more

energetic,
requiring something like half a meter of lead to stop, and it is a steady
bombardment rather than a series of predictable bursts.


I thought lead was a terrible radiation shield and compared poorly with
hydrogen rich materials. Would half a meter of lead really stop the
energetic particles or simply transform them into radiation of a more life
threatening kind.

If you can't shield
your entire habitable volume with that half-meter of lead or the

equivalent,
you just have to take it. And while it is not intense enough to be an

acute
hazard, a year's exposure would be associated with a ~3% increase in

lifetime
cancer risk.


Are you sure about this. What age group are we talking about, what exposure.
A 18 year old male sitting in a apollo capsule for a year is going to have
significantly more than a 3% mortality increase assuming he even survives at
all. Are you sure your not referring to LEO radiation as opposed to the
Space Environment.

So we'd like to block the cosmic radiation if we could.


Sure, which I would think, cover you for any Solar events as well.




  #7  
Old November 9th 04, 11:32 AM
John Thingstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 06:10:55 GMT, Christian Ramos
wrote:


Somewhat more worrisome is *cosmic* radiation. This is much more

energetic,
requiring something like half a meter of lead to stop, and it is a
steady
bombardment rather than a series of predictable bursts.



Several Apollo astronauts complained about flashing streaks in their eyes.
A astronaut was set out to test this. He closed his eyes and saw the
flashes. It was found to be cosmic radiation.
When the space helmet glass was viewed under a microscope you could
see the trails where cosmic rays had penetrated.
There is no doubt that this is a real threat with long exposure.
Modern shielding uses segmented shielding. Multiple layers with
air/vacuum between them. NASA has done extensive research on more effective
shielding for the space station. Look at NASA's web site.
(www.nasa.gov)


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
  #8  
Old November 10th 04, 01:38 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

....snipped comment from John Schilling erroneously attributed to me...


There is no doubt that this is a real threat with long exposure.
Modern shielding uses segmented shielding. Multiple layers with
air/vacuum between them.


I'm familiar with this approach for thermal protection and some aspects of
meteorite protection. I would think this approach would be useless for
radiation though. Many of the studies seem to indicate a multi segmented
shield whereby different materials are used, but the gaps appear irrelevant
in this case. Also, there is no real agreement/data on what the real
environment is like or acurate ways to measure the Biological impact of
radiation found in space given our lack of experience in such an
environment.

NASA has done extensive research on more effective
shielding for the space station. Look at NASA's web site.
(www.nasa.gov)


Sure they have, however, the radiation environment of outer space is not the
same as that in LEO. Some would argue that it is totally irrelevant,
although that may be a stretch.


  #9  
Old November 10th 04, 03:22 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christian Ramos" wrote in message
...

"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

...snipped comment from John Schilling erroneously attributed to me...


There is no doubt that this is a real threat with long exposure.
Modern shielding uses segmented shielding. Multiple layers with
air/vacuum between them.


I'm familiar with this approach for thermal protection and some aspects of
meteorite protection. I would think this approach would be useless for
radiation though. Many of the studies seem to indicate a multi segmented
shield whereby different materials are used, but the gaps appear
irrelevant
in this case. Also, there is no real agreement/data on what the real
environment is like or acurate ways to measure the Biological impact of
radiation found in space given our lack of experience in such an
environment.

NASA has done extensive research on more effective
shielding for the space station. Look at NASA's web site.
(www.nasa.gov)


Sure they have, however, the radiation environment of outer space is not
the
same as that in LEO. Some would argue that it is totally irrelevant,
although that may be a stretch.


In the famous works of Joey Tribiani the protective shielding of the
space station is a
"Moo Point". They have less radiation to consider due to the fact that it is
close to
the protective embrace of mother Earth. Trying to think about the radiation
protection
we as humans would need in other star systems that may probably produce even
more
radiation than our own sun is a "Moo Point" as well. As we cannot yet travel
to other
stars there is little to no need to worry about this yet. Protection for
traveling to other
planets and asteroids for exploration and hopefully commercial use was my
only real
concern. Protection for humans, and for plants as the ability to grow our
own food
supplies in space.

A topographical type solution like the one I initially suggested seems
to me the only real viable solution. Though more expensive initially it
would in theory
offer a great amount of protection with little energy costs. Due to the cold
nature of space
this i would think this could be used to keep the super conductive 'sheath'
cold with little
need to draw excess power from the 'ship'. This could also be used to dump
the excess
power into this organized chaos of protective wiring for emergency usage.
This seems like
a better long-term solution to me instead of letting your water and food
stores protect you.
This also makes me wonder if using your food and water stores as protection
if they
themselves become contaminated by space radiation?

From a manufacturing standpoint it would be a good idea as well.
Anything when
you produce tiny amounts of it in limited areas is expensive. When you start
producing
greater amounts due to increased demand then cost in turn decreases. We have
many uses
for super conductive type materials and should not wait for the 0k mark to
produce them.
But would take the government investing money more in mass to get those
types of
factories jumpstarted.


  #10  
Old November 10th 04, 06:14 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message news:PXekd.12$N95.0@lakeread01...

In the famous works of Joey Tribiani the protective shielding of the
space station is a
"Moo Point".


Havent heard of Joey Tribiani nor "Moo Point" before in this context,
who/what are they?

They have less radiation to consider due to the fact that it is
close to
the protective embrace of mother Earth.


Agreed. They also have different types and abundances of various particles
to deal with, plus very different environments thermally, particulate, etc
etc.

Protection for
traveling to other
planets and asteroids for exploration and hopefully commercial use was my
only real
concern. Protection for humans, and for plants as the ability to grow our
own food
supplies in space.


I believe that this is more a "suck it and see" type thing. It's probably
something that no matter how many studies are done is going to require real
data from the real environment to get a good handle on it. It's more than
identifying what types of radiation are present, but what types are harmful
to biologicals and in what doses. My personal preference would be to make
those initial pioneers 50+ and incorporate a good euthanasia program
combined with medical followup pre and post death to get such data.


A topographical type solution like the one I initially suggested seems
to me the only real viable solution. Though more expensive initially it
would in theory
offer a great amount of protection with little energy costs. Due to the

cold
nature of space
this i would think this could be used to keep the super conductive

'sheath'
cold with little
need to draw excess power from the 'ship'. This could also be used to dump
the excess
power into this organized chaos of protective wiring for emergency usage.
This seems like
a better long-term solution to me instead of letting your water and food
stores protect you.


Your original message isnt in my newsreader, although I would think that
relying on a power and technology based solution for such a fundamental
survival feature may be a high risk strategy. The question I always ask is
how do you maintain it. That is, if you need to turn it off to repair, how
do you protect yourself. If the answer is passive shielding, then you may as
well remove the active shielding to begin with.

This also makes me wonder if using your food and water stores as

protection
if they
themselves become contaminated by space radiation?


I'm always doubtful on such solutions. Too narrow a focus. eg: does this
mean that we cant ship cargo without food and water being present due to the
risk of electronic failure. Although, I'm all for utilising it as a tertiary
or even secondary protection, using food and water as primary protection
seems like abit of a copout with highly variable results. Does this mean
only certain types of foods, and what damage to the nutrients will occur by
being exposed to radiation etc etc.


From a manufacturing standpoint it would be a good idea as well.
Anything when
you produce tiny amounts of it in limited areas is expensive. When you

start
producing
greater amounts due to increased demand then cost in turn decreases.


In my experience this is not always the case and can be misleading. Example,
I know of a recent productisation whereby the mass market enabled them to
produce the product 8 times cheaper. However, this was driven by them being
able to get a cheaper price on the larger volumes of raw matierials. It
should also be noted that it was more expensive to actually produce the
product mass market (due to wastage, plant, capital costs etc) but the scale
of savings on materials more than made up for it. No such economies of scale
will really be available for space based enterprises per se as logistics
rather than sourcing is likely to be a higher part of the cost.

We have
many uses
for super conductive type materials and should not wait for the 0k mark to
produce them.
But would take the government investing money more in mass to get those
types of
factories jumpstarted.


..My 2 euros are we already have materials that are superconductive in the
temperature envrionment of space and even the moon and as such a good
envrionment for further research. I believe superconductivity could have a
significant role to play in energy storage in space, but thats personal
opinion.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe Br Dan Izzo Policy 6 September 7th 04 09:29 PM
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory Br Dan Izzo Astronomy Misc 0 August 31st 04 02:35 AM
Interstellar radiation part of Mars challenge Kent Betts History 0 December 10th 03 06:37 AM
Wich is the best Radiation Hull or Shield we can build for a spacecraft? Steve Harris [email protected] Science 9 October 28th 03 06:23 AM
New NASA Facility Will Help Protect Space Crews From Radiation Ron Baalke Space Station 0 October 14th 03 04:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.