Space Travel: Overcoming Cosmic Radiation Challenges

[wolram]

This paper states that extended space travel would be harmful for astronauts, how would future space travel over come cosmic radiation

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161010052832.htm

 

[Jonathan Scott]

It's already known that crews would need some way to shelter from radiation in case a solar flare occurred during the journey, as a single flare could give them severe radiation sickness. It has been suggested that it might help a lot to turn the spaceship end-on towards the sun in that case, with the crew at the end away from the sun. The new aspect is that even everyday exposure to cosmic rays could add up enough to cause problems, and one can't avoid that by means of turning in a particular direction. So either the crews would have to accept the risk of a certain amount of potential brain damage (!) or a new form of shielding might have to be developed.

You might find this article interesting:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/How_to_Protect_Astronauts_from_Space_Radiation_999.html

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

A sufficient thickness of ice will stop most radiation threats from the sun.

 

[BillTre]

But, how thick would be sufficient?

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

But, how thick would be sufficient?

That's math. I don't do math. However, consider the weight difference between a cubic meter of ice and a cubic meter of lead. The weight savings would allow a greater depth of shielding to be carried for the same energy expenditure.

 

[BillTre]

Maybe they could pick some up in space and not have to launch it up.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Maybe they could pick some up in space and not have to launch it up.

Definitely would be a good idea. And I suspect H2O is one of the most common chemical compounds in this universe.

The gravity well penalty is a large part of what's keeping us from full-bore expansion into space now. Any way we can work around that is worth more than its weight in gold.

 

[Rubidium_71]

The easiest solution is the one we already use - you end Moon missions in 1972 and stop sending people beyond low Earth orbit and let robots go exploring while everyone stays home. People have talked about human missions for 44 years, but they never actually do anything. The only extended human space missions are in TV and the movies and, in my opinion, it's likely to stay that way for a very long time.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

The easiest solution is the one we already use - you end Moon missions in 1972 and stop sending people beyond low Earth orbit and let robots go exploring while everyone stays home. People have talked about human missions for 44 years, but they never actually do anything. The only extended human space missions are in TV and the movies and, in my opinion, it's likely to stay that way for a very long time.

Pathfinder died on Mars because it couldn't fix itself. EOM Mark Watney (theoretically) survived on Mars because he could fix things. He completed the mission (as seen in the extended cut). Mission accomplished.

 

[Rubidium_71]

Pathfinder died on Mars because it couldn't fix itself.

The mission was intended to last between a week and a month. Pathfinder had a good run, it made almost made it to three months. When one robot "dies" we just send another, better machine to take it's place anyway.

EOM Mark Watney (theoretically) survived on Mars because he could fix things.

As I pointed out, the only success of this type we've seen so far is in fiction. When Mr. Damon has used his punctured glove to fly through space in real life and grabs Jessica Chastain's flailing hand in orbit around the real planet Mars, let me know.
This pretty much underlines the reality of the situation, either we send a robot like Pathfinder (which excludes risking a human's life) or we declare victory in the realm of fiction. Either way, humanity has it's preferred solutions to extended the space travel concept. The public seems satisfied whether it's actual scientific data from a robot - "Hey! Pluto has got a heart on it!" OR people are satisfied with speculation from the realm of science fiction "Hey! There's green women living somewhere in the constellation of Orion!"

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

The mission was intended to last between a week and a month. Pathfinder had a good run, it made almost made it to three months. When one robot "dies" we just send another, better machine to take it's place anyway.

And they'll continue to die for possibly trivial reasons. Humans can do better.

As I pointed out, the only success of this type we've seen so far is in fiction. When Mr. Damon has used his punctured glove to fly through space in real life and grabs Jessica Chastain's flailing hand in orbit around the real planet Mars, let me know.
This pretty much underlines the reality of the situation, either we send a robot like Pathfinder (which excludes risking a human's life) or we declare victory in the realm of fiction. Either way, humanity has it's preferred solutions to extended the space travel concept. The public seems satisfied whether it's actual scientific data from a robot - "Hey! Pluto has got a heart on it!" OR people are satisfied with speculation from the realm of science fiction "Hey! There's green women living somewhere in the constellation of Orion!"

Before I wore khakis I was in charge of fixing things that broke on my ship. I saw Matt as doing the same thing on Mars. It's really not that different. "You just begin."

 

[mheslep]

... EOM Mark Watney (theoretically) survived on Mars ...

Not theoretically, fictionally. Very different things.

 

[mheslep]

And they'll continue to die for possibly trivial reasons. Humans can do better.

Before I wore khakis I was in charge of fixing things that broke on my ship. I saw Matt as doing the same thing on Mars. It's really not that different. "You just begin."

The analogies are way off. One does not examine the problem of crossing the ocean and conclude swimming has a shot because they have great determination. Setting foot on Mars and coming back is not like fixing a ship.

 

[BillTre]

Apollo 13 could be considered a fix-it case in space (also a movie!).
However, one could also argue that all that was done to save the craft would not have been necessary if the were no people aboard and no people would have been put at risk.
On the other hand, its unlikely the mission would have happened without the people due to technological limitations.
On the third hand, technological advances have shifted the threshold for when it makes sense to send people (when current technology can't be expected to handle things sufficiently well.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Not theoretically, fictionally. Very different things.

You get half a hair, I get the other half.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

The analogies are way off. One does not examine the problem of crossing the ocean and conclude swimming has a shot because they have great determination. Setting foot on Mars and coming back is not like fixing a ship.

Okay then.

 

[mheslep]

You get half a hair, I get the other half.

Fiction and theory? Half a mountain.

 

[phinds]

Fiction and theory? Half a mountain.

I think it's more like fiction gets half a hair, theory get half a mountain.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Fiction and theory? Half a mountain.

The hairs are fully split.

 

[Rubidium_71]

And they'll continue to die for possibly trivial reasons. Humans can do better.

Humans have been doing better, we've built better machines that have been more successful as technology progresses.
Sadly, humans have already died from "trivial" causes. To me the comparison goes like this:
The Mars Polar Lander goes to Mars and NASA never hears from it again. The result is one lost piece of junk.
A valve is jolted open on Soyuz 11. The result is the deaths of three people.
Whatney's statement at the end of the film in question - that if you can solve all the problems you get to go home - is rather simplistic. Real life doesn't necessarily work that way. There are Apollo 13 situations where the problems were solved as Whatney describes and they did indeed survive. However, the crews of the Challenger and Columbia shuttles undoubtedly tried everything to save their lives and those missions were only in low Earth orbit.
The bottom line is this - the last four decades show that humans prefer to explore the Solar System remotely from the relative safety of Earth. Remote exploration is also far more cost effective for extended space journeys. Therefore any extended space missions shouldn't have to worry about people being exposed to radiation - robots can be made to withstand radiation and they are our preferred method. Hollywood actors should also be safe since they operate in the world of make believe.

 

[mheslep]

Astronaut Chris Hadfield: "My prediction, we will never go to Mars with the engines we have right now"

Hadfield objects to the transit time with existing tech as far too long thus too complex thus too risky.

 

[phinds]

Astronaut Chris Hadfield: "My prediction, we will never go to Mars with the engines we have right now"

Hadfield objects to the transit time with existing tech as far too long thus too complex thus too risky.

Yeah, what he said !

 

[|Glitch|]

This paper states that extended space travel would be harmful for astronauts, how would future space travel over come cosmic radiation

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161010052832.htm

NASA has a rather extensive Technical Memorandum on the subject you might find interesting.

• Revolutionary Concepts of Radiation Shielding for Human Exploration of Space - NASA Technical Memorandum, March 1, 2005

There is also the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer currently being used on the ISS "which is designed, among other things, to determine whether cosmic ray particles are made of matter or antimatter."

• Space Station Spin-Off Could Protect Mars-Bound Astronauts From Radiation - MIT Technology Review, September 14, 2012

This paper, also from MIT, using similar technology mentioned above may prove informative:

• Use of Superconducting Magnet Technology for Astronaut Radiation Protection - Final Report for NIAC Phase I Contract CP 04-01, May 2, 2005 [PDF]

Dartmouth University, Thayer School of Engineering, also has a repository of papers published on this subject going back to the 1960s.

• https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d76205x/research/Shielding/

 

[Learner60]

Definitely would be a good idea. And I suspect H2O is one of the most common chemical compounds in this universe.

The gravity well penalty is a large part of what's keeping us from full-bore expansion into space now. Any way we can work around that is worth more than its weight in gold.

Many Asteroids are full of ice..lasso one..put it in lunar orbit only three days away..put a spacecraft with appropriate mechanism too attach ice..proceed on journey.

 

[Learner60]

Asteroids contain lots of ice..put one in lunar orbit..the moon's only three days away! And work from there.

 

[mfb]

Many Asteroids are full of ice..lasso one..put it in lunar orbit only three days away..put a spacecraft with appropriate mechanism too attach ice..proceed on journey.

Accelerating a lot of ice will need a huge amount of energy. You can convert ice to fuel, but only with a huge array of solar cells or with a nuclear reactor.

 

[somebodyelse]

The easiest solution is the one we already use - you end Moon missions in 1972 and stop sending people beyond low Earth orbit and let robots go exploring while everyone stays home.

I don't think that is acceptable if we think of the survival of the human species. Sooner or later humans *need* to settle on another planet to avoid accidental extinction. So the problems of radiation, prolonged weightlessness, etc. need to be solved. And one cannot assume that the first few settlements on other planets will succeed either. So the clock is ticking. Hopefully it will not run out before we succeed. Need to think outside the box of current options.

 

[Rubidium_71]

I don't think that is acceptable if we think of the survival of the human species. Sooner or later humans *need* to settle on another planet to avoid accidental extinction.

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that due to people being shortsighted (among other things) that's not what's happening. It should happen, but it is currently unlikely.

 

[1oldman2]

http://www.astrowatch.net/2016/11/study-finds-cause-of-visual-impairment.html

A visual problem affecting astronauts who serve on lengthy missions in space is related to volume changes in the clear fluid that is found around the brain and spinal cord, according to new research presented today at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

 

[sophiecentaur]

Pathfinder died on Mars because it couldn't fix itself. EOM Mark Watney (theoretically) survived on Mars because he could fix things. He completed the mission (as seen in the extended cut). Mission accomplished.

Is there really any point in bringing Hollywood into this discussion? Any message you get from a feature film is out of the director's head. It's not real, you know.
Timescales get longer and longer, in reality. I remember when 2001: A Space Odyssey was far enough in the future that we could almost believe it. Now, 2001 is way in the past and we have virtually none of what Arthur C Clarke talks about in the book / film. To give him credit, I would bet he never actually believed in the timescales involved in his stories.
One thing that has outstripped most predictions has been Computer Technology, though and is no longer unthinkable that a robot craft and crew could maintain a space mission even after a mishap. It's even fair to say that the problem solving might be better than that of a human crew - no hormones and psychoses to get in the way for robots.
I can't help thinking that the would-be spacers actually envisage themselves out there, doing heroic deeds of space conquest. That has to be a naive view of the reality of the business, which would be stressful and boring, in addition to being deadly dangerous.
PS I even remember a time when '1984' was far in the future.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Sooner or later humans *need* to settle on another planet to avoid accidental extinction

This is a very optimistic statement. The reaction of humans to disasters in general is not to think 'long term', it's more likely that any serious thread will be dealt with after the fashion of the population of Easter Island - virtual self destruction, instead of dealing with the problem of lack of resources. (That example is, of course only the view of some anthropologists but it's a very reasonable scenario).
One good Ice Age or the opposite could cause an extinction well before human technology could take us away from the problem. But these arguments have been visited time and again on PF and we never agree on a possible outcome of this.

 

[mfb]

Computers are still stupid. They outperform humans in specialized tasks with a very limited set of variables (like many games, where you can easily describe the rules and the full game state), but there is nothing that would even come close to a general artificial intelligence. This is not (only) a limit of computing power - even if we ignore hardware limitations, we don't have software we could run on faster computers that would behave intelligently.

We might have intelligent software before we sent humans to Mars - both timescales have a large range of estimates. Follow-up problem: Does it require a supercomputer or can we put it in a ton-scale lander?