The Van Allen Radiation Belt and Space Travel

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the Van Allen radiation belt for space travel, particularly concerning the safety of astronauts traveling to the Moon and Mars. It touches on theoretical concerns, practical applications, and the challenges of long-term space missions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the radiation from the Van Allen belt could make it impossible to travel to the Moon or Mars, while others argue that satellites and the ISS operate successfully within this environment.
  • One participant mentions a claim that a minimum of 3 meters of lead would be necessary for protection against the radiation, while another challenges this by stating that such a thickness would be absurd based on radiation attenuation principles.
  • There is a suggestion that radiation levels in the Van Allen belt are not high enough to cause immediate fatality, but there may be an increased risk of long-term health effects, such as cancer, associated with radiation exposure during space missions.
  • Concerns are raised about radiation exposure being a significant challenge for NASA in planning long-term missions to the Moon and Mars, alongside issues like providing sufficient potable water.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the safety and implications of the Van Allen radiation belt for space travel. There are competing views regarding the severity of the radiation and the necessary protective measures.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about radiation levels and protective measures depend on specific definitions and assumptions that are not fully explored in the discussion. The discussion also highlights unresolved challenges related to long-term space missions.

BayernBlues
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
[Post edited by Ivan] I've heard that the intense radiation from the Van Allen belt would make it impossible to travel to the moon or send anything to Mars etc. It's obviously possible to have satellites or the ISS (which is only I think 330 miles above us). People say that the radiation from this belt can be avoided and isn't strong enough while I've heard others say that you'd need a minimum 3 meter belt of led around a shuttle to protect it from this radiation.

So...what's your opinion or debunk for this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
I have very little to offer in the field of astrophysics but I remember hearing Phil Plait, an American astronomer, talk about this on a radio show a few years ago. Here is a link I found from his website: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html (find 'van allen'). I'm sure google could yield you some more results.
 
Moon landing conspiracy threads are supposed to be on our banned topics list. I will lock this for now.
 
All conspiracy theories are already banned, but we should probably specify the moon landing hoax theories in the banned topics list.

I am moving this to physics with the understanding that the question is: How can astronauts survive the Van Allen Radiation Belt? The op has been edited.

I believe the short answer is that the radiation levels aren't that high.
 
Last edited:
Radiation levels certainly wouldn't be high enough to cause instantenous death or anything like that. You need something really bad, on the order of 10s of sieverts to cause that. Possible (read: probable) that there is an associated increased risk of cancers and the like, but that's true for all radiation intensive activities.

Side note: 3 meters of lead effectively decreases radiation by about (1/2)^300, or ~10^-91. That should make you realize the absurdity of the claim.
 
Radiation exposure on deep-space missions (long term moon habitat, Mars missions) is probably the #1 outstanding problem facing NASA in it's effort to fly those missions and keep the crew alive. The other major unresolved problem is having enough potable water.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
11K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K