2 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: Ask Anything Wednesday - Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science
Now that we know being off-Earth (in interplanetary space) is terrible for your kidneys, what sort of solutions are you kicking around to protect astronauts from radiation damage? Is the equipment itself in danger, especially since tech is growing more and more refined?
Comment by bluesbrother21 at 26/06/2024 at 23:57 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Radiation is (and has been) a concern for spaceflight, and becomes even more so as you leave Earth orbit. (The Earth's magnetic field absorbs and/or redirects much of the harmful radiation from the Sun when you're close). This poses a risk to both people and to hardware. Computers, to pull one example, are generally both more expensive and slower for space applications than terrestrial ones due to the need for radiation hardening.
For manned missions outside of Earth orbit, limiting radiation exposure is a main objective of the vehicle design. There have been some novel solutions, such as using Lunar regolith to build structures to shield from radiation or hiding in magma tunnels. For spacecraft, radiation shielding is difficult because of the mass required. In short, you need a lot of *stuff* to block the radiation (water is a common one), and that stuff is heavy. As far as I know, this is still an open question, and a major limitation on long-duration human spaceflight outside of Earth orbit.
Comment by atomfullerene at 27/06/2024 at 18:17 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Now that we know being off-Earth (in interplanetary space) is terrible for your kidneys
Well, we have one paper highlighting potential problems using a mouse model and extrapolation from experience in LEO. Which is worth taking seriously, but I don't like the "now that we know" phrasing. We don't *know* stuff from just one paper, no matter how good it is. We won't *really* know about the health effects of a Mars trip until someone actually makes one. This is mostly just an aside about the dangers of relying too much on a single paper on any topic. It's *probably* fine in this case, but if you aren't careful you'll be led astray by exciting new papers that turn out to be wrong.
what sort of solutions are you kicking around to protect astronauts from radiation damage?
Two main approaches are shielding the crew compartments better by putting stuff between astronauts and space (this is easier on planetary surfaces, and the planet shields about half the cosmic rays just by being the ground beneath your feet) and making the trip faster to reduce overall exposure.
Is the equipment itself in danger, especially since tech is growing more and more refined?
Fortunately we have lots more experience with electronics in space, and in deep space. There are ways to harden them against radiation and to use backups to account for failures. You can't just bring along extra kidneys (or extra astronauts) and just shrug if a few die as long as some keep working. But you absolutely can include extra computer processors and use them as backup.
Comment by mfb- at 26/06/2024 at 23:58 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
We know how to build radiation-tolerant electronics. Some particle detectors receive far higher radiation doses than spaceflight equipment and we can make that work as well. It's more expensive and slower, sure, but it works.
Concerning humans, you can lower the radiation dose with more shielding material.
Comment by hbgoddard at 26/06/2024 at 19:14 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Do you have a source for the kidney claim? I would assume any problems there would be due to the 0g environment, not radiation, as astronauts and their equipment are already quite well protected from radiation.