Is it possible to make an electromagnetic field to shield astronauts from radiation using the inertia of a Centripetal...

Is it possible to make an electromagnetic field to shield astronauts from radiation using the inertia of a Centripetal space station or craft?

Attached: Space_station_tracking.jpg (1600x1200, 727K)

Other urls found in this thread:

home.cern/about/updates/2015/08/superconducting-shield-astronauts
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990051001.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HZE_ions
abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/11/15/3886100.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Anyone?

yes

"Space" doesn't exist.

"Radiation" doesn't exist.

using the momentum to generate a EM field would slow the rotation, you would need to constantly accelerate the station with fuel. Would be easier to catch the radiation with solar panels on a spindle and use that to power the field locally around the torus.

Would solar panels catch catch cosmic rays?
I'm working on some sci fi, but cosmic radiation seems to be a real problem without proper shielding.

>believing NASA's excuses against manned space travel

You could just use water to block radiation, you just need a lot of it

Would be tough using a spacecraft like the one in the pic, with water shielding

Why wouldn't long term exposure to Cosmic rays not affect the human body?

particles are referred to as radiation, too

it is particle radiation, particularly high energy cosmic rays (protons and heavier nuclei) coming from outside our solar system, that is the primary health threat for astronauts

ozone does not protect against these cosmic rays, mass of the atmosphere is what protects us (10 tons per square meter)

similar mass is required for long term space radiation shielding, too

The only radiation you need to shield against is solar radiation. Cosmic radiation actually is worse due to our atmosphere. It would be better to have no shields at all for cosmic rays. For solar radiation 1-2 metres is enough.

The primary danger is solar radiation, high energy cosmic rays are extremely rare and can't be shielded against, shielding actually makes it worse.

not true at all

cosmic rays are ubiquitous and are the main threat for astronauts

shielding only makes things worse for small masses of shielding on the order of

>Cosmic radiation actually is worse due to our atmosphere.

Nonsense, cosmic ray radiation is higher at higher elevations, atmosphere is what protects us

Seems like the best way to live in space is to build a base inside an asteroid you moved or in a moons crust.

just have your water tanks act as the shielding

Not really though, you can live with a thin shield for decades in space. The odds of you dying are similar to somebody with an extremely unhealthy lifestyle on earth, like chain smoking or obesity.

Concerning high energy rays you should read this:

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990051001.pdf

tl;dr they are relatively insignificant in the context of radiation doses.

Seems like the easiest solution, but rip windows.

yes, any realistic space colony will either have to be underground (does not have to be very deep, tough) or have several meters thick outer walls

High energy cosmic rays kill a few hundred cells, if you are unlucky enough to be hit by one.

Lower energy cosmic rays cause constant radiation affecting all your cells and are the dangerous one.

If a high energy comis rays hits a shield, it will cause lower energy rays.

your source is only talking about a solar particle event (SPE), not galactic cosmic rays

however in the long term (months, years) galactic radiation dominates the radiation dose and is the hardest component to shield against

>Not really though, you can live with a thin shield for decades in space. The odds of you dying are similar to somebody with an extremely unhealthy lifestyle on earth, like chain smoking or obesity.

very much debatable, and that may be acceptable for some stranded astronaut but not for an actual colony

>Lower energy cosmic rays cause constant radiation affecting all your cells and are the dangerous one.

and you need at least several meters of shielding to stop them and all the secondaries

No.

You shouldn't have windows anyway. Even the cupola on the ISS is rarely used because it is a hot bed of radiation due to its windows when the shutters are open.

Attached: 1200px-Exterior_of_Cupola_-_Exp28.jpg (1200x897, 167K)

>several meters of shielding

Personally, I'm fine with that. We can hollow out an asteroid and add rockets and shit to it we need. Use that for shielding, if the asteroid itself isn't hot with radiation.

it is fine for a static colony but can be a big issue for a mobile spaceship because of all the shielding mass you need to move around

Sci fi lied to me!

>[window][water][window]

>acceptable for astronauts but not colony
Safety faggots never find anything acceptable. Safe suicide method is the recommended treatment for that illness.

That isn't a problem.

radiation shielding study for a long term colony on the Moon

5 meters of regolith (7 tons per square meter) needed to reach the same radiation levels as in high natural radiation places on Earth (people live there, tough)

almost 8 meters to reach Earth surface levels, however there may be no need for such perfect shielding

Attached: G5NHP[1].jpg (629x433, 36K)

why not?

note that galactic cosmic rays (and not solar radiation or flares) dominates the dose

if you have a shield thick enough to shield GCR (and you better do), solar radiation is not a concern

>default excel graph design
>not using origin
barf

One come from outside the solar system, the other from the sun itself, that's literally the only difference.

significant differences exist in spectrum of the radiation (both higher energy and proton numbers) and also the fact that GCR are omnidirectional and constant while solar events are directional and occur only sporadically

in the end this means that galactic cosmic rays dominate the long term dose for astronauts, see this graph

existence doesn't exist

You are an idiot. The paper is about the sun emitting high energy rays. There is literally no difference between those coming from our sun and those coming from other stars.

>those coming from other stars.

>from other stars.

You think cosmic rays come from other stars? lol

>Composed primarily of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei, they are of uncertain origin. Data from the Fermi Space Telescope (2013)[3] have been interpreted as evidence that a significant fraction of primary cosmic rays originate from the supernova explosions of stars.[4] Active galactic nuclei are also theorized to produce cosmic rays.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

You dont even know the basics and yet you call me an idiot..

Somebody who needs to quote wikipedia surely is an expert on the matter.

Just surround the entire thing in a fish tank, that way you still have visibility.

nothing wrong with wikipedia for basic scientific facts, you can find sources in citations

and you dont need to be an expert on the matter either

do you also want a review article by an expert to prove that Earth is a globe?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HZE_ions

>For HZE ions that originate from solar particle events (SPEs), there is only a small contribution toward a person's absorbed dose of radiation. During a SPE, there is such a small amount of heavy ions generated that their effects are limited.

>space will give you cancer
>mars will give you cancer

We sure need that mars colony!

Humans have long ago figured out how to maneuver mass through space.

What kind of an answer is that, lol

Payload mass is a very significant constraint on spaceflight, and if you need to shield the spaceship with lots of mass then your useful payload will quickly plummet and your travel time explodes.

If you think extra mass on a space ship is a problem then you have a mental problem.

hey now

Attached: iu[1].jpg (1280x720, 401K)

from wikipedia
>As well as deflecting the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays, high-energy charged particles that are mostly from outside the Solar system. (Many cosmic rays are kept out of the Solar system by the Sun's magnetosphere, or heliosphere.[27]) By contrast, astronauts on the Moon risk exposure to radiation. Anyone who had been on the Moon's surface during a particularly violent solar eruption in 2005 would have received a lethal dose.

>Its magnitude at the Earth's surface ranges from 25 to 65 microteslas (0.25 to 0.65 gauss)

OP, wrap your torus in metal wires run a current through it, enough to create a local EM shield of say, 5 gauss and you will be sweet.

>If you think extra mass on a space ship is a problem then you have a mental problem.

behold, the state of Veeky Forums in the year of our lord 2018, ladies and gentlemen

I gauss the entire spaceflight industry deeply concerned with keeping payload weight in check is a bunch of morons after all

good for solving that issue for us, your noble piece price will be delivered shortly

>As well as deflecting the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays, high-energy charged particles that are mostly from outside the Solar system.

Earths magnetic field does not deflect the vast majority of cosmic rays, our atmosphere does. Hence why people who live in high elevations or who fly often get significantly higher radiation doses.

Wouldn't thick glass work better?

>entire spaceflight industry deeply concerned with keeping payload weight in check

No, they are making bigger rockets so they can take even more payload up. Thus, it isn't a problem for them. See, because they already have the answer. This is why you are a monumental fucktard triple brainlet.

Here's a photo of you.

Attached: Triple Brainlet.png (604x704, 95K)

That's just wrong.

The magnetic field is the reason the Earth is not a radiation blasted barren rock like the other planets.

well well, look who can't agree with wikipedia now

>what is payload fraction

bigger rockets will not help you there

Attached: double brainlet.png (604x704, 95K)

>inb4 user kills himself making 20kg diy rocket

Nope, our atmosphere is the reason for that when it comes to cosmic rays. Magnetic field merely protects the atmosphere from being stripped by solar wind.

I cannot, and you better post some other source because that is just wrong.

Dedicated nuclear powered turbine hooked to a big ass alternator should give you some kind of magnetic field. I'm not an electrical engineer so I'm not sure what level of amperage you'd need to protect you from cosmic rays, or what kind of interference the field would place on your instruments vital to station operations. Just use pneumatic controls for everything I guess

nobody in the spaceflight industry is planning to shield spaceships against cosmic rays, even Musk plans to rely on a quick trip (several months) instead of thick shielding

you dont know what you are talking about and yet call others brainlets

>it is okay.
>a little cancer is fine
>we have a treatment program for you

((()))

>Earths magnetic field does not deflect the vast majority of cosmic rays, our atmosphere does
you source that first, because the atmosphere deflects shit, until you do, I'll maintain wikipedia BTFO'd you

>atmosphere

atmosphere turns cosmic rays into secondary particles (particle shower), and only few of the particles actually reach the ground.

>"On Earth if you measure the radiation dose on the surface and then remove the magnetic field, the radiation dose we get will be doubled," says Atri.

>"But if we keep the same magnetic field and instead reduce the atmosphere by 50 per cent, the radiation dose increases by a factor of ten. So the main shielding is provided by the atmosphere, and the magnetic field is a secondary factor."

abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/11/15/3886100.htm

is that deflection?

cosmic rays, brainlet

the article is about cosmic rays, moron

Can't we just go to the moon first, pick up some rocks, tie them to the outside of the ship like an aphid lion and THEN take the most fuel efficient path to the planet we wanna go to? That way you don't have to launch out of earth's huge gravity well with all that heavy shielding.

you can, but the most fuel efficient path (the one with least delta-v) is also a long path, so if you want to take a year to get to Mars and decades to go to outer solar system you can afford to have thick shielding, otherwise it is a problem

>abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/11/15/3886100.htm
>The higher the depth of the planetary atmosphere, the lower the flux of secondary particles will be on the surface.
Secondary particles are not Cosmic, retard.

Not a bad trade-off if you can bring more supplies instead of all that dead weight. In fact, you can set it up so the moon rocks are taken to LEO first by another ship and just hang there until you're ready for the main trip. Am I crazy?

secondary particles caused by cosmic rays, idiot

>hey guys i have an idea how to avoid solar rays on the way to mars we just fly outside of the solar system then come back directly to mars!

not crazy, and you are not the first to propose that due to cosmic ray radiation the future of space colonization will be large, very well shielded but also slow spaceships instead of fast transits

it is a legitimate possibility I guess

ofcourse, and those very fucking few that get through the magnetosphere and hit the atmosphere will propogate further in less atmosphere. But we aren't talking about the progation of secondary particles inside atmosphere, we are talking about cosmic rays from out side the magnetosphere. Hence why in 2005 if anyone was on the moon during the sun fart they were dead and we on earth didn't even get a tickle. YOU GINORMOUS SPASTIC.

You are mixing apples and oranges here, cosmic rays and solar flares, and you are too stupid to even realize it. Magnetosphere can protect our atmosphere against occasional solar eruptions, but then those are not so energetic quite easy to shield against, with the hull of the spaceship or a storm shelter being enough. Magnetosphere does almost nothing against galactic cosmic rays, tough, because they are composed of much heavier nuclei and have higher energies, and the only protection against those is our atmosphere, all 10 tons per square meter of it.

The hydrogen atoms absorb and stop most everything. You want good shielding? Find a way to get more hydrogen atoms closer together as densely as possible. Water vapor in the atmosphere helps a great deal. Plastic works. The best would be something /x/ like metallic hydrogen. If it could actually be made and stay together.

I just wish we had a little bit of industry going on at the moon to help with things, not just some crashed debris and old mission leftovers.

note that such very heavy shielding would be needed only for missions lasting longer than a year, in inner solar system maybe as far as Ceres a conventional ship could still be enough

also if we ever manage to master significantly faster propulsion (nuclear? fusion?) then even outer system flights may be doable under a year, still keeping risk of cancer increase at acceptable 5% or so

rocket fuel such as methane would also be very good shielding

too bad most of it is burned during transfer burn at the beginning of the trip

read a textbook dude really. You are mixing apples and oranges here, pressure and desnity and you are too stupid to realise it. 10 tons per square metre is static pressure, not density.

>The flux of incoming cosmic rays at the upper atmosphere is dependent on the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field, and the energy of the cosmic rays. At distances of ~94 AU from the Sun, the solar wind undergoes a transition, called the termination shock, from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The region between the termination shock and the heliopause acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing the flux at lower energies (≤ 1 GeV) by about 90%. However, the strength of the solar wind is not constant, and hence it has been observed that cosmic ray flux is correlated with solar activity.

In addition, the Earth's magnetic field acts to deflect cosmic rays from its surface, giving rise to the observation that the flux is apparently dependent on latitude, longitude, and azimuth angle.

The combined effects of all of the factors mentioned contribute to the flux of cosmic rays at Earth's surface. The following table of participial frequencies reach the planet[62] and are inferred from lower energy radiation reaching the ground[63]

abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/11/15/3886100.htm

>"On Earth if you measure the radiation dose on the surface and then remove the magnetic field, the radiation dose we get will be doubled," says Atri.
>"But if we keep the same magnetic field and instead reduce the atmosphere by 50 per cent, the radiation dose increases by a factor of ten. So the main shielding is provided by the atmosphere, and the magnetic field is a secondary factor."

>So the main shielding is provided by the atmosphere, and the magnetic field is a secondary factor.
>main shielding is provided by the atmosphere

Just stop posting, brainlet.

Attached: 1355682644512.jpg (460x276, 28K)

I did not mention any density, cant you read? 10 tons per square meter is simply mass of the atmosphere above 1 square meter of Earth surface, a convenient unit of radiation shielding mass. It is neither pressure not density. You are out of your depth here and you know it.

Cosmic ray flux depends on solar cycle and activity, a well known fact, nothing new here and certainly nothing that would contradict my post.

>In addition, the Earth's magnetic field acts to deflect cosmic rays from its surface, giving rise to the observation that the flux is apparently dependent on latitude, longitude, and azimuth angle.

Most of this flux variation comes from deflection of solar particles, not galactic cosmic rays, which are barely affected by magnetic field.

I can't think of anything with a higher hydrogen ratio than methane.(4:1). 3nd best would be stuff like Ammonia or Ethane; both 3:1. I'm not even sure methanium would count. lol

Humans need a lot of water, and water also happens to be fantastic at shielding people from radiation. Consider putting all the stored water in containers that surround the exterior of the habitual modules, or even just holding all the water in a big tank on an arm that maintains a static position between the sun and the habitual part of the station.

Another question, say you're using a constant ion engine for thrust in your travel to another solar system, do you actually need Centripetal force for Artificial gravity? Wouldn't the constant acceleration create it?

Attached: images_5.jpg (225x225, 7K)

A constant ion engine only produces milligees acceleration.

Current ones, though I assume our tech will get better and a more powerful thrust could be obtained. One type would be a plasma engine.

it shouldnt be too difficult to develop radiation shielding that keeps it sufficiently at bay to enable long term survival. combine it with futuristic gene repair / tumor removing medicine that will probably exist within a decade or two and it will not be a problem

creating an EMF for shielding is retarded. the field would have to be extremely strong and would waste huge amounts of energy. also, if you used this method you would have to power it with a strong and abundant energy source such as nuclear fusion, not lmao solar panels

it is redundant anyway since you want to shield your spacecraft sufficiently against meteorites or you are playing russian roulette

>pic related
ISS constantly gets hit by micrometeorites and has very thick multilayered shielding against it around critical components

Attached: 1518750896186.png (1008x768, 801K)