Slashdot Mirror
Solar Flares Shield Astronauts from Cosmic Rays
It doesn't come easy writes "Considering all of the research into better shielding for astronauts, it's interesting to note that solar flares can help shield space travelers from dangerous cosmic rays. From the article: "The crew of the ISS absorbed about 30% fewer cosmic rays than usual [during this last month of high solar activity]," says Frank Cucinotta, NASA's chief radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center. "The storms actually improved the radiation environment inside the station." Scientists have long known about this phenomenon. It's called a "Forbush decrease," after American physicist Scott E. Forbush, who studied cosmic rays in the 1930s and 40s. So, I guess it would be safer to plan a manned Mars mission to coincide with peak sunspot activity?"
Novel concept.
So, I guess it would be safer to plan a manned Mars mission to coincide with peak sunspot activity?"
How about having the spacecraft generate its own external magnetic field? How effective would that be?
let's not forget what it did for jean grey...
...magnetic fields from flares and CMEs (this "matter" you speak of) deflecting the energy, too. Don't forget that.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Not very pratical for commuting ...
If I'm understanding this right, the magnetic properties of the solar flare cause the decrease in CME's? If so, couldn't ships magnetize their hull to shield the people inside? It obviously won't stop all the CME's, but it will decrease it.
Might turn out Enterprise's "ionize the hull" isn't as much sci-fi nonesense as it first sounds.
"So, I guess it would be safer to plan a manned Mars mission to coincide with peak sunspot activity?"
No, the real answer is to have space missions start on Sun-days. har har har har.
Well, that could be a logical conclusion from the article. BUT, what also occurs during major sunspot activity?. Mondo solar flares! Yes, they may help suppress the Cosmic Radiation. But, I sure wouldn't want to be stuck somewheres in the vast space between Mars and Earth with one of these monsters heading for me. The spaceship would be hit like a rowboat in a hurricane, in terms of solar radiation.
Just how dangerous are these cosmic rays anyway?
Daniel Alexander Fong
So how about I use the cheap solar energy to run a Van de Graff generator and put about 167TeV into a metal shell around my ship?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Hence its hardly a perfect testbed for radiation effects regarding long-term space flights. You have to wonder if the factored in the change solar activity makes to the earth's magnetic field when putting this all together.
tikonauts, you insensitive clod!
Solar flares may protect astronouts from cosmic rays, but will provide no defense against death rays or destructo-rays!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
The SGC really needs to start trickling that stuff down to NASA...
why not plan a trip to the sun, she be nice and safe there....
NASA Science News for October 7, 2005
Another source:
Strange, but true: Solar flares can be good for astronauts.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I knew there must have been a flaw in the Fantistic 4 movie. This is it!
Even if I'm off by many orders of magnitude (IANAP), the required field strength will be unattainably high.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Thats great and all, but how it it going to effect me? I don't work for Nasa or any aerospace company for that matter.
Maybe they can tell me when there will be a solar flare so I can conduct my toaster pastry experiments. I feel that these will revolutionize the way everyone eats breakfast!
Nothing is more Airwolf than Airwolf! Cheers!
So when NASA fakes the Mars landings, they get a cheaper rate....
The reason for this decrease in galactic cosmic rays is that the solar flares and coronal mass ejections themselves emit relativistic electrons and solar cosmic rays (mostly protons) which are responsible for pushing the galactic particles back. The number of solar energetic particles emitted during flares is much larger than the galactic source. In addition to the energetic particles, the sun also emits copious amount of hard and soft X-rays during solar flares.
I don't think that it matters much to an astronaut whether the ionizing radiation is galactic or solar in origin. As for solar flares improving the radiation environment inside the space station, I find that statement very curious. With experts such as this, maybe that's why they announced the closing of the Space Environment Effects division at NASA last week.
I don't care much about a 30% "Forbush descrease" in outer space... but I'd sure like to see if solar flares can create a 100% "for Bush decrease" in the U.S.!
Isn't this the same phenomena that cost Gore the election in 2000? - ME -
Yeah. It's at like 40-something percent approval rating still.
The % of people who are forbush needs to drop to 0% already!
It's a tough job shielding those astronaughts between my attempts to destroy the worlds electronics.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Not saying the bone loss problem can't be solved, but ever since hearing about the bone loss problem I've felt that radiation would be easier to solve than bone loss.
= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15852539&dopt=Citatio n
A simplistic source, (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0778174.html) has this easy to digest quote
"... And because the gravity on Mars is only 38% of Earth's, ways to counteract any damaging effects of the weak gravity on their bodies, such as progressive bone loss and muscle atrophy, will have to be found. Currently, there is no fully effective treatment for microgravity-induced bone loss, and counter measures against bone loss are a top space science priority."
For deeper reading try:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Because this is all moot.
As long as people are too stupid to realize that ANY space travel is going to be a risk this is all for not. When as a country we can again accept that there will be a risk involved in any exploration and especially that of space, then we can get manned vehicles in orbit again and truly start moving towards planetary travel. Now here there is a big whoop over one of the more forgotten dangers in space and people still cry over some foam that has fallen off shuttles since their rollout in the 80s. Once we grow up again and can accept that we will never get rid of 100% of the ever present dangers of space travel/flight, we can move forward again and start to get more research and data on this topic.
Until then, keep your stone tipped spear and furs handy as they match the mindset of our species the most accurately.
To create stronger magnetic fields, or just better repairing.
Maybe advanced gene manipulation technology isn't even a prerequisite; we could put enough people in space and let evolution do it's job.
If I could transfer my mod points from my post to yours, I would. Thanks for the info.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Actually, what happens if all three are used in tandem?
Use magnetic fields to shield the ship from plasma by funneling it into a reactor rather than repelling it.
The solar flare blocks radiation, fuels the ship, and could potentially provide enough fuel to solve the bone mass issue.
The bone mass issue is caused by being in zero G, but if you're constantly under acceleration, you don't suffer from being in zero G. You also go places much faster than if you allow yourself to travel in free fall.
Accelerate the first half of the trip, turn around and accelerate the other direction the second half, and you have launch, the day you turn around, and landing in zero G.
Not a horrible solution, don't you think?
Larry Niven had some great ideas when it came to magnets and hydrogen reactors.
Even capturing plasma flying out of a solar flare will accelerate you because you absorb energy from the plasma in capturing it!
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
"Forbush decrease" If only we'd had that during the 2004 elections.
The problem with going at solar minimum is that more galactic cosmic rays make it inward to the inner solar system, increasing radiation dose. The problem with going at solar maximum is occasional sudden death from energetic proton streams. Solar flares cause three main hazards: gamma rays from the flare itself (a problem but not a lethal one for most events); energetic protons that are accelerated by the flare and any post-flare coronal mass ejection; and bulk clouds of material that are thrown off by the Sun and that entrain magnetic fields.
The energetic protons are a real problem for man and machine. They arrive minutes to hours after the flare itself is seen. They have a high "quality factor", meaning they do a lot more biological damage than an equivalent ionizing dose of X-rays or gamma rays; and they tend to embed themselves in insulators, developing a humongous static charge that screws with electronic circuits and can burn out components. The clouds are more of a problem for planet-sized bodies (like the Earth) than for astronauts, but they do have some potential health consequences. They travel at "only" 1-4 million miles per hour, arriving at Earth about 1-4 days after the solar event.
Over the last three years we've had six or seven large flares that could have caused radiation sickness or death for Apollo astronauts (or Mars-bound astronauts with similar amounts of shielding to a mere Apollo capsule). That's enough that you'd have to expect at least one such event during a Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars, if you travelled at this phase of the solar cycle (declining).
The space station is largely shielded from the energetic protons, because it stays in low Earth orbit, underneath the Van Allen radiation belts -- Earth's magnetosphere diverts the protons away from the station. But the high energy galactic cosmic rays have no trouble passing through and hitting the station. So station astronauts are (probably somewhat) safer during solar maximum, but interplanetary astronauts are (probably) safer during solar minimum. Either way the radiation dose is a problem that has to be designed around.
Incidentally, the largest effect of solar activity on the space station is orbital decay! During solar maximum, the increased far-ultraviolet brightness of the Sun heats the outer layers of the atmosphere (the "thermosphere"), making them expand significantly -- that increases orbital drag a LOT. It's one reason (the other being delays in the Shuttle program) that Skylab re-entered the atmosphere before the Shuttle came on-line to provide additional boost. Skylab was launched during solar minimum in the mid 1970s, and the orbital decay projections were based on solar minimum conditions. It re-entered several years earlier than initially expected, because the atmosphere (and hence orbital drag) got larger in the solar maximum period of the late 1970s. The space station has similar orbital-decay issues; if you Google for the altitude-versus-time plots, you'll see that at its chosen altitude, the ISS needs to be boosted every six months or so, or it will spiral in and re-enter the atmosphere.
There are any number of possible models for bone loss on partial gravity. It might be that there's no accelerated bone loss at all once gravity is above some minimum value. It might be a linear relationship. Or something more complex again.
The MarsGravity biosatellite will hopefully provide some answers on this point, assuming it's ever launched. But at the moment you're taking a very glass-half-empty point of view.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It's called a "Forbush decrease," after American physicist Scott E. Forbush
You know in Sweden everyone's called Johansson, so it would really be a bummer if too many Swedes were scientists, I mean, it might cause an epidemic making people actually name things based on what they fucking are.
the sun is god
Either way, seems like a horrible way to "DIE". It's like getting lethal injection but 1 million watt electricity rid of 30% of the lethal chemical in your body.
hmm.. did I just invented a new way to execute people?
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Without properly tuned shields the astronauts may turn to stone, or become invisible, or get really stretchy, or turn into fireballs.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
So, I guess it would be safer to plan a manned Mars mission to coincide with peak sunspot activity?
Peak sunspot activity means peak coronal mass ejection (solar flare) activity. A really large solar flare can inflict thousands of rems in a short period of time, while you'd be reducing cosmic ray exposure by tenths of a rem per week. Even smaller flares will influct tens or hundreds, and at any reasonable interplanetary speed, you'll get hit by several during a sunspot peak.
If you've got the Van Allen belts between you and the Sun, and are spending half your time shielded from flares by the mass of a planet anyway, yeah, you're better off at the solar maximum, because you're shielded enough from flares that the cosmic ray deflection rsults in a net reduction. But if you're going to some other body in the Solar System, going at the maximum is suicidal.
Actually, speaking of the MarsGravity biosatellite, I have an odd question.
Why don't they just develop the little spinny thing to hold and feed the mice and send it up on the next Progress Drone to the ISS? Why are they developing their own satellite with it's own life-support system when we have a perfectly good space station that has a life-support system, as well as a couple of guys to monitor the experiment and the mice and potentially fix anything that goes wrong.
And rather than developing the heat shield, parachute, and airbags to bring the mice home, they could just bring the mice back on the next ISS "shift change" on a Soyuz capsule.
I mean, why involve all the rocket science? These problems have been solved. I'm sure they can build a little spinny habitrail type of thing for a fraction of the cost of building a whole satellite with a return system.
If by "radiation" you mean electromagnetic radiation, i.e. sunlight, X-rays, heat, et cetera, then these things are unaffected by the Earth's magnetic field. More or less, you have to have a charge to be affected by a magnetic field, and photons have no charge.
The Earth's magnetic field deflects charged particles from the Sun or in cosmic rays. These particles are sometimes called "radiation," but that may be a little bit misleading as they're not at all like light or X-rays.
That being said, it is indeed possible that changes in the Earth's magnetic field have some effect on the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, but what it is, I don't know, and it is likely to have a fairly non-obvious mechanism. I suppose if nothing else the high energy particles can do interesting chemistry in the upper atmosphere, and that can lead to changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases...
...And don't forget what radiation did to Bruce Banner.
Oh, and we can't leave out Dr. Strange - what being smart did for Bruce Wayne.
And, finally, we don't want to forget about The Green Lantern - how being near kryptonite affects Clark Kent.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I agree that on the surface it sounds like a good idea, but I think the problem is that you need a certain radius of the rotation or the rotation rate will be so high as to make the mice permanently seasick from the Coriolis forces. That tends to rule out conducting it within the interior of the ISS.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Don't Forget To Pack Your SPF 1,000,000 !
Doesnt solar flares create large magnetic fields? so is it better to be bombarded by a lesser evil?
I know that there is no extensive research about damage done by magnetic fields but they are people that think that being exposed to those is as dangerous in the long run, no?
Lead underwear seems about the only solution then. I think I'll stay home.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
The Association of Space Explorers is holding their 19th Planetary Congress here in Salt Lake City this week. The theme of the conference is "Our Destiny in Space: Worlds without Borders". I took my son downtown and we got to meet Don Lind, one of the space shuttle astronauts. I thought it was pretty awesome. Thanks, Don. I'm curious to know how many folks have actually met an astronaut...
/. and got rejected, so take that, CmdrTaco!
Some of the things they are talking about(from the official program):
The Genesis of Cooperation in Space: The Apollo-Soyuz Program
Tom Stafford
Panel Discussion (ASE Founders)
Loren Acton, Bertalan Farkas, Georgi Ivanov, Alexei Leonov, Vladimir Lyakhov, Dorin Prunariu, Rusty Schweickart, Vitaly Sevastyonov
Technical Session: International Space Programs Review
Chairs: Chris Hadfield, Leroy Chiao
NASA Headquarters Update: The ISS Program and Future Issues
Bill Readdy, NASA
Life on Station
Leroy Chiao, NASA
Report on the Canadian Space Program
Chris Hadfield, CSA
Report on the Russian Space Program
Yuri Usachev, RSC Energia
Technical Session: Crew Safety & Technical Issues
Chairs: Sergei Avdeev, Charlie Precourt
Shuttle Derived Vehicles
Mike Conn, ATK Thiokol
Maintaining On-Orbit Crew Proficiency
Chris Hadfield, CSA
Electromagnetic Radiation and Crew Health
Alexander Serebrov
Technical Session: Future Programs
Chairs: Michel Tognini, Yuri Usachev
Beyond the Moon: The Asteroid Option
Tom Jones
Kliper
Yuri Usachev, RSC Energia
Russia's Future in Space
Georgi Grechko
The Aurora Program
Piero Messina, ESA
There's some pretty big names in there, also note that they are talking about astronaut safety with regard to electromagnetic radiation.
I submitted this to
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
Arrrrgh! If you're going to quote someone, get it right.. What Adam said was:
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"
He did not say "...it with...".
After I posted the above reply, I was reading somewhere on the MarsGravity site (too lazy, Google it yourself) that NASA actually had such a lab to go on the ISS, but it's going to get canned because of the well-known difficulties facing that station. An editorial in the New York Times caned them for doing so, wondering how the heck they were planning to do long-term stays on the moon without collecting data on what low-G does to the body.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)