4 ms·
Hopefully we can develop some light materials for radiation protection. So we can have radiation-proof domes and suits on Mars.
by ape4 10y ago
Hopefully we can develop some light materials for radiation protection. So we can have radiation-proof domes and suits on Mars.
- bazzargh 10y agoI have to wonder if the recently discovered ice deposits on mars would do the job https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/mars-ice-deposit-holds-as-much-water-as-lake-superior https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/mars-ice-deposit-holds-as-m... If this really is just a metre down and 80% water it's got to be an attractive target - relatively easy to mine (once surface is cleared, just use heat) and a hollowed out underground structure with 1m of ice above would be an effective radiation shield: http://space.stackexchange.com/a/1826 http://space.stackexchange.com/a/1826 ... and once you're there, water is water, plus water can be used to make fuel.
- some1else 10y agoI'm wondering how contaminated are raw materials on planets without a solid magnetosphere. Could it be that most of the water out there is too radio-active for consumption?
- dreistdreist 10y agoThings get contaminated by radioactive material, not by radiation exposure [0]. And of course obligatory xkcd [1]. [0] https://www.mirion.com/introduction-to-radiation-safety/radiation-vs-contamination/ https://www.mirion.com/introduction-to-radiation-safety/radi... [1] https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
- Roboprog 10y agoSo, your biggest problem in a reactor cooling pool is "lead poisoning", eh? :-) Anyway, worth pointing out that cosmic rays are little groups of neutrons (and adjoining protons). I don't know about the half life of the resulting products, though, or how often a heavy nucleus collides with another nucleus, vs simply bashing through electron bonds.
- throwanem 10y agoThe trouble there is that, in order to attenuate high-energy radiation like the cosmic rays under discussion, you need something that's either extremely dense or extremely thick, and ideally both - dense so a speeding particle is more likely to hit it instead of zipping past between the atoms, thick so that Bremsstrahlung X-rays get absorbed before they reach human tissue susceptible to ionization injury. Both of these are physical necessities, and both militate directly against the idea of a light, comfortable radiation-proof suit or dome. They're also not something that can be solved by incremental improvements in materials science - as sensible to imagine that we're just an unknown number of iterations away from main battle tank armor with the mass and density of Styrofoam, and for precisely the same reasons.
- nekopa 10y agoI'm completely out of my depth here, but couldn't we develop some kind of force field to do this? I'm thinking something along the lines of a Faraday cage, but for the GCRs. Is anyone researching this line of thought?
- throwanem 10y agoIt might not be impossible, but we'll need to develop some new physics first.
- Roboprog 10y agoA magnetic field (Van Allen belt, or analog on other bodies) deflects lighter charged particles better than heavier ones (with a greater mass-to-charge ration). E.g. - helium ions (alpha particles) vs iron nuclei as mentioned in the article. Otherwise, pure mass over your head is the best defense.
- ivan_gammel 10y agoLight materials are physically impossible (absorption shield will be heavy anyway), but some energy shield that will deflect radiation could be a solution both for colonies and for spaceships.