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
  #11  
Old November 10th 04, 10:39 AM
Kaido Kert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christian Ramos" wrote in message ...
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.

Ok, why hasnt anybody put lab rats on any of the mars-bound orbiters
yet, just to monitor the effects on health ?
Eventually some living organism is going to have to take the trip, and
it would be kinda stupid to have the first human crew as test
subjects.

-kert
  #12  
Old November 10th 04, 06:14 PM
John Thingstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Christian Ramos
wrote:


"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

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


I might add that the best shielding for a nuclear reactor would be to
place it
far away from the crew quarters. Radiation follows the inverse square
distance law, yes.
So put it on a boom far away from the crew quarters. Shape is of little
relevance to a spacecraft as long as it is symmetric around the axis of
thrust.
VASIMR is a true space drive not designed for use in a atmosphere.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
  #13  
Old November 11th 04, 12:53 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
om...
"Christian Ramos" wrote in message

...
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.

Ok, why hasnt anybody put lab rats on any of the mars-bound orbiters
yet, just to monitor the effects on health ?


There appears little room for payload now, so placing biologicals and
associated life support on those payloads seems a bit ridiculous, let alone
the fact that you would have to go to mars to actually retreive the rats..
Additionally, rats arent really going to cut it in determining the effect on
humans, plants and other species.

Eventually some living organism is going to have to take the trip, and
it would be kinda stupid to have the first human crew as test
subjects.


Why..I dont remember Nasa sending rats to the moon before the Apollo
landing. Alot of current radiation data comes from the Japanese population
exposed to US Nuclear weapons not rats. The reality is, Space is a dangerous
environment, and like any other dangerous environment, much of the survival
techniques are going to be developed from people living in that environment,
not by running simulations in the comfort of someones lab outside that
environment.

I dont think anyone is suggesting using humans as test subjects. I'm
suggesting maximising the medical data gathered from those initial pioneers.
And picking those pioneers to minimise any suffering etc etc. Example,
elderly people who have no requirement to procreate and who are unlikely to
live long enough statistically to develop full blown tumours and cancers.




  #14  
Old November 11th 04, 01:02 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Christian Ramos
wrote:


"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

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


I might add that the best shielding for a nuclear reactor would be to
place it
far away from the crew quarters. Radiation follows the inverse square
distance law, yes.
So put it on a boom far away from the crew quarters. Shape is of little
relevance to a spacecraft as long as it is symmetric around the axis of
thrust.
VASIMR is a true space drive not designed for use in a atmosphere.


I'm a proponent of nuclear power (when done right) and a supporter of
nuclear reactors for planetary power and for space transport tugs. What I
cant bring myself to support is the use of Nuclear reactors in a atmosphere
given aerobrake requirements. Wouldnt such a design as you propose make a
aerobrake maneuver even more dangerous if not structurally impossible.

VASIMR, seems to me like a technology toy looking for a real life solution.
How would you envisage VASIMR being used. Although, given a space based
research program that furthers our understanding into magnetics and plasmas
things could change, but the benefits are more likely to flow through to
technologies such as the Russian MPD thrusters.


  #15  
Old November 11th 04, 05:49 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christian Ramos" wrote in message
...

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
om...
"Christian Ramos" wrote in message

...
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.

Ok, why hasnt anybody put lab rats on any of the mars-bound orbiters
yet, just to monitor the effects on health ?


There appears little room for payload now, so placing biologicals and
associated life support on those payloads seems a bit ridiculous, let
alone
the fact that you would have to go to mars to actually retreive the rats..
Additionally, rats arent really going to cut it in determining the effect
on
humans, plants and other species.


A test such as this would not go all the way to mars much less be extra
payload. you would put a variety of plants, small creatures and some bugs in
a self sustained environment and see what the effects are. Would be a good
way to test different types of shielding as well. this test would also have
to be done away from earth to have the full effect of a long term trip.

Eventually some living organism is going to have to take the trip, and
it would be kinda stupid to have the first human crew as test
subjects.


Why..I dont remember Nasa sending rats to the moon before the Apollo
landing. Alot of current radiation data comes from the Japanese population
exposed to US Nuclear weapons not rats. The reality is, Space is a
dangerous
environment, and like any other dangerous environment, much of the
survival
techniques are going to be developed from people living in that
environment,
not by running simulations in the comfort of someones lab outside that
environment.

I dont think anyone is suggesting using humans as test subjects. I'm
suggesting maximising the medical data gathered from those initial
pioneers.
And picking those pioneers to minimise any suffering etc etc. Example,
elderly people who have no requirement to procreate and who are unlikely
to
live long enough statistically to develop full blown tumours and cancers.


Umm but you are saying use uman test subjects. and telling them to suck it
up and drive on untill they get cancer and have to return. Not to mention
the whole point of this is to make it safer for humans and whatever else we
wish to invite up into space. I do believe everyone here understands space
is a dangerous space...the umm point is....to make it less dangerous.

-Matthew H.


  #16  
Old November 11th 04, 05:51 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Christian Ramos
wrote:


"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

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


I might add that the best shielding for a nuclear reactor would be to
place it
far away from the crew quarters. Radiation follows the inverse square
distance law, yes.
So put it on a boom far away from the crew quarters. Shape is of little
relevance to a spacecraft as long as it is symmetric around the axis of
thrust.
VASIMR is a true space drive not designed for use in a atmosphere.


If your going to use a nuclear reactor yes. i would think best way to do it
would be on a boom as well. Not to mention it makes it possible to dump the
whole reactor modual 'just in case'. Would make large upgrades easier as
well with the ability to just add a new modual.


  #17  
Old November 11th 04, 05:59 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christian Ramos" wrote in message
...

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?

Joey was a charecter on friends. Just one of the episodes I remember and
enjoyed. ;-) (note: my wife makes me watch them.)
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.

Of course this isn't a suck it up and see attitude. You build tests first,
see how they go, if positive, proceed. and as far as the pre and post death
goes, means we wait another 60+ years before venturing into space towards
mars? I doubt humans will wait that long.


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.

My point here was towards superconductors. there are many earth applications
for these, not just space. transportation, increased energy efficiance,
loss-less power transportation and such.
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.


aye, agree with ya there. my 17 american pennies worth (dang inflation and
gas prices now adays).


  #18  
Old November 11th 04, 06:48 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
newskCkd.773$N95.53@lakeread01...
"Christian Ramos" wrote in message


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.

Of course this isn't a suck it up and see attitude. You build tests first,
see how they go, if positive, proceed. and as far as the pre and post

death
goes, means we wait another 60+ years before venturing into space towards
mars? I doubt humans will wait that long.


Unfortunately, it would probably be 60+ years if we do tests, and even at
the end of that it would still be a case of "suck and see".

My scenario, would be along the lines of, evaluate likely shielding based on
the work of Nasa and the Russian Space Agency, use it and carefully measure
the effects on personnel. My own personal preference although not yet in
concrete, is to have people 45/50+ do the initial pioneering, as given a
full life they will unlikely live long enough to develop nasty radiation
complications but can provide valuable data for the next generation.

Then again, I guess it depends whether we are talking about a PR stunt ala
Apollo or a more permanent human presence, I'm referring to the later. At
this point we dont know the environment that well and we dont know the
effect on humans that well, so all the simulations in the world wont help
until we get real human beings up there.




  #19  
Old November 11th 04, 07:28 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
news:KbCkd.727$N95.295@lakeread01...
"Christian Ramos" wrote in message
...

There appears little room for payload now, so placing biologicals and
associated life support on those payloads seems a bit ridiculous, let
alone
the fact that you would have to go to mars to actually retreive the

rats..
Additionally, rats arent really going to cut it in determining the

effect
on
humans, plants and other species.


A test such as this would not go all the way to mars much less be extra
payload.


So your talking a seperate mission. Without getting political, I think this
would be long way down the current priority list and achieve little.

you would put a variety of plants, small creatures and some bugs in
a self sustained environment and see what the effects are. Would be a good
way to test different types of shielding as well. this test would also

have
to be done away from earth to have the full effect of a long term trip.


The radiation environment doesnt appear to be uniform in space so you would
want to test in all possible environments which are currently unknown. How
would you measure the damage remotely, how would you identify the damage
from the various forms of radiation, and how would this apply to humans. How
would you identify flux versus accumlative damage etc etc.The project would
probably be more complex than actually sending humans and still need to be
verified by long term human exposure.


Umm but you are saying use uman test subjects. and telling them to suck it
up and drive on untill they get cancer and have to return. Not to mention
the whole point of this is to make it safer for humans and whatever else

we
wish to invite up into space.


No I'm saying that the initial pioneers will be aware that what they have is
the best we can give them and that as time goes on things will be improved,
much the way it was handled with the Apollo astronauts although with better
medical followup in this case. Given we dont know the what the actual
radiation environment is and we dont know what the short/medium or long term
effects are in such an environment let alone the reaction of biologicals in
such an environment it will need to be modified as experience is gained. You
cant model something you dont actually know about, only take best guesses
and incorporate real data when it becomes available.

I do believe everyone here understands space
is a dangerous space...the umm point is....to make it less dangerous.

And this is the crux of the argument. You cant make it less dangerous, we
cant change the space environment to that degree, if we take that approach
we will never go into space. The only methodology available is one of
reducing or removing the impacts to the people in it. Therefore, we need to
know the impacts and know the causes, something we do not currently know nor
will we know until we have experience in the actual environment. Sure we
cant make a best guess but at some point it needs to be validated in the
real world.

A personal observation not an accusation, some countries primarily america
have taken the attitude in the last few decades that everything has to be
safe before anything dangerous can be attempted (probably started when all
the lawyers starting getting into it). This will only lead to us permanently
being grounded on earth or dickering around in LEO. At some point all the
models and simulations in the world will need to be validated by someone
living in space.





  #20  
Old November 11th 04, 11:03 AM
Kaido Kert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christian Ramos" wrote in message ...
There appears little room for payload now, so placing biologicals and
associated life support on those payloads seems a bit ridiculous,

I asked the same question in another online discussion, and got the
number of around 50kg for one rat and its consumables for a six-month
cruise, including associated equipment. I suspect its closer to 100
but still not prohibitely high.

let alone the fact that you would have to go to mars to actually retreive the rats..
Additionally, rats arent really going to cut it in determining the effect on
humans, plants and other species.

Its not absolutely necessary to retrieve them, is it ? We could simply
pack sufficient health monitoring equipment along. Of course,
returning it back to earth and monitoring the long-term effects would
be even better, so if you have a mars sample return mission, it would
be perhaps possible to return biological experiments from martian
orbit along with surface sample.
Obivously effects on humans would be far from certain with rat
experiment, but we could be a lot more confident, after all we have
used rats for such purposes for centuries. But packing a couple plants
along would be a good idea of course, especially because those wouldnt
cost much in a payload.

Eventually some living organism is going to have to take the trip, and
it would be kinda stupid to have the first human crew as test
subjects.

Why..I dont remember Nasa sending rats to the moon before the Apollo
landing.

But they put chimps in Mercury capsules, didnt they. US was in a race
then and didnt have enough time to do it. Were there never plans to
put animals on Surveyors ?

-kert
 




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 01:40 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.