Mass attenuation problem, protecting the lunar base against radiation?

AI Thread Summary
Astronauts are attempting to protect a lunar base from radiation by using a 4-meter layer of regolith, but radiation levels remain 50% higher than on Earth. They aim to reduce radiation exposure to match Earth's levels, requiring additional regolith. The initial calculations suggest that to achieve this, approximately 5.333 meters of regolith may be necessary, based on the assumption that the attenuation rate is constant. However, the lack of a specified absorption coefficient or half-value layer for regolith complicates the calculations. The discussion highlights the need for more information to accurately determine the required thickness for adequate radiation protection.
carnivalcougar
Messages
40
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


To protect the lunar base against space and sun radiation, astronauts covered it with 4m thick layer of regolith (moon soil). However, they found that they level of radiation was still 50% higher than on the Earth's surface, which they want to match. How many more meters of regolith do they need to add for proper protection?


Homework Equations



I = I˳e-µx


The Attempt at a Solution



I know that they want to reduce the radiation by 1/3, to 2/3 of the current value. However, no half layer value or absorption coefficient is given for regolith.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
carnivalcougar said:

Homework Statement


To protect the lunar base against space and sun radiation, astronauts covered it with 4m thick layer of regolith (moon soil). However, they found that they level of radiation was still 50% higher than on the Earth's surface, which they want to match. How many more meters of regolith do they need to add for proper protection?


Homework Equations



I = I˳e-µx


The Attempt at a Solution



I know that they want to reduce the radiation by 1/3, to 2/3 of the current value. However, no half layer value or absorption coefficient is given for regolith.

If 4m of soil attenuates to 1.5 times the intensity at the earth, how many meters of soil is needed to attenuate to 1.0 times the intensity at the earth. The attenuation rate is constant, so...
 
Would this just be 5.333m? if 4m attenuates to 1.5x Earth radiation, then 1/3 more regolith would attenuate to 1x Earth radiation. 4x(1/3) = 1.333 and 4+1.333 = 5.333
 
carnivalcougar;47Ie?06819 said:
Would this just be 5.333m? if 4m attenuates to 1.5x Earth radiation, then 1/3 more regolith would attenuate to 1x Earth radiation. 4x(1/3) = 1.333 and 4+1.333 = 5.333

I'm not following your math, but it doesn't look exponential.

Draw a graph of I versus distance, with the plot having an exponential shape. The initial intensity with no attenuation is Io on the y-axis at distance d=0. The exponential I plot falls to a value of 1.5*Ie at a distance of d=4m. Can you then solve for how much more distance d it takes to have that exponential decay fall to 1.0*Ie?
 
For this problem, I = I˳e-µx

I = 1 and I˳ = 1.5
x = 4m + some distance
μ = no idea

They do not give the half value layer λ which is related to μ by μ = ln2/λ

Therefore, I'm not seeing how to solve the problem.

If you start with I = 1.5 , I˳ = original intensity before the regolith (not sure what it would be, it's not given) then x = 4m and μ = unkown. There are still two unknowns in that problem.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top