from the they-already-have-the-acronym-thing-down dept.
At the April 13th meeting of the American Physical Society, students from Drake University in Iowa presented their MISSFIT (Magneto-Ionization Spacecraft Shield for Interplanetary Travel) design that uses superconducting magnets to generate a magnetic shield protecting spacecraft against cosmic radiation while in transit.
The design incorporates both passive and active magnetic shielding similar to the Earth's ionosphere.
With help from a small NASA grant through the Iowa Space Grant Consortium, experiments are already underway on the passive shielding, which could protect astronauts from high-energy gamma-rays that a magnetic shield can’t stop. The hope, said Lorien MacEnulty, a junior at Drake and a member of the team, is to solve a key safety problem that's delayed an eventual NASA mission to Mars: long-term exposure to interplanetary radiation.
Right now, the students are experimenting with a number of radiation-blocking fabrics that might be light enough to mount on a spacecraft.
"We expose [the fabrics] to radiation," MacEnulty told Live Science. "Then we count how many particles make it through the layers of fabric."
The active shielding on the other hand assumes that any future spacecraft would be 'roughly cylindrical' with room at either end for a superconducting magnet ring powered by nuclear reactors.
Those magnets wouldn't divert gamma-rays. But they would cause charged alpha particles — another component of cosmic rays that could strike the spacecraft and emit X-rays — to move toward the ends of the spacecraft, which would be capped by two bubbles of material filled with a mixture of ionized gas that mimics Earth's ionosphere.
As the alpha particles zoom through this ionized gas, they would lose energy in a process similar to the one that produces auroras in the ionosphere near Earth's own North and South Poles.
Many questions remain unanswered in the design and the students are already showing their maturity as researchers by planning out what will require investigation and study over the next several years.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:30PM (7 children)
To protect the astronauts from space radiation, they are going to surround them with nuclear radiation. Why don't these idiot students' professors guide them to a more practical areas of research like gender studies.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:02PM (3 children)
They aren't surrounding themselves in Nuclear Radiation. They are using magnets to create a magnetic shield that protects them from radiation. The magnets are powered by a nuclear reactor. The nuclear reactor would have it's own shielding/lining that would be designed not to kill the crew.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:03PM (1 child)
Because tons of lead shielding make for more efficient lift-off...
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:32PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilopower [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @12:46PM
let me complete that:
And the nuclear reactor do no need to be close to the people, can be put far away enough and have only radiation shield in the side that is facing the astronauts. all other sides can have almost zero shield
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:29PM
I just assumed you are trolling, but if you're serious...?
lol
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @11:36PM (1 child)
Sure.
To me the major flaw in the design is that the space craft assumes a centralized living area. This eliminates the ability to create a gravity environment by locating the living area on the outside of a rotating cylinder. I guess the trade off is live in zero g for several months or get exposed to more radiation. For a one way trip, perhaps neither matter. But for anyone wanting to come back, both are issues that need solutions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:33AM
They can either shield a whole rotating cylinder, shield part of it, or come up with a different way which centralizes the living quarters (like a tether system with a counterweight) for providing the rotation for artificial gravity. It was always known that this was going to be a problem. Any other radiation shielding system has the same issues with a trade off between the size of the living area and the amount of shielding the living area will need.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:48PM
I want to make a plasma gun.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:53PM (1 child)
is that "maturity" displayed by proposing additional studies, or by ensuring they have work for many years to come?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:54PM
For that level of cynicism you get 3 avocado toasts!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:56PM (4 children)
"Nuclear Powered Superconducting Magnetic Cosmic Radiation Shielding for Marsonauts"
That has got to be the worst movie title ever.
(Score: 2, Funny) by RandomFactor on Tuesday April 23 2019, @11:02PM
It is missing "in Spaaaace!" at the end to really put a bow on it.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @11:05PM
There. FTFY.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday April 24 2019, @12:41AM (1 child)
Even just on its own, the cutesy pseudo-term "Marsonauts" deserves to be put on a nuclear-powered rocket and shot at the sun for the sake of humanity.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:56AM
Why? There's nothing wrong with naming a ship (even a space ship) “Mars”. The crew of that ships then will be Marsonauts, just like the crew of the Argo were the Argonauts.
The bigger question is why the Apollonauts were incorrectly called Astronauts. As far as I can tell, no space ship ever has been called “Astro”.
SCNR ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by engblom on Wednesday April 24 2019, @05:32AM (2 children)
I have been thinking that the best way to send humans to Mars would be to build a spaceship in space, in connection to ISS so the workers would have a place to live. Then one would not need a huge rocket for sending up a heavy spaceship and one can send up piece by piece a lead shields and other parts. Besides sending up the parts for building the ship they would also do several shipments of fuel, water etc. To protect the passengers from radiation the walls would be shielded both by lead and the water supply.
Once ready this spaceship could be docked and sent with passengers to a Mars orbit and they would land with a separate lander. At some point (with or without passengers) the space ship itself would return to an orbit around earth were it could be refueled again. It would be something like a heavy space bus between the two orbits.
Personally I think the MISSFIT system sounds dangerous as it got too many components for something as vital as a radiation shield. It is enough that one part (for example cooling of the super conductor) fails and the system is without protection. A static system where the walls themselves absorb the radiation would not have this problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:24AM
I understand your point, but space exploration is inherently dangerous. If man only does things that are perfectly safe then we are unlikely to survive long on this planet.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 24 2019, @01:44PM
That's not going to work very well unless you can build the thing using a crew of only 3-6 people (ISS capacity), and are willing to suspend all other ISS activities during the process.
The basic idea is sound though - at least in the long term, once we've mastered construction in space. Instead of using the ISS, send up a few Bigelow inflatable space station modules with associated life support systems. A lot more space available quickly, and the equipment and layout can be designed to facilitate construction work, rather than research.
We might want to master construction on less mobile projects like space stations though - you don't want some critical construction flaw to make itself urgently known while you're a month or two away from Earth. There's also the minor problem of the substantial radiation exposure, micrometeorite collisions, and other mechanical risks for the construction workers trying to do their job in space - construction is a lot more demanding than simple module assembly like the ISS involved. It'd be really nice to have nimble VR telepresence robots with humanish torsos and arms to perform work in vacuum - and if we have that, then most of the operators can even stay comfortably on Earth, the lag to low orbit is relatively low, unlike to the Moon or Mars.
In the meantime, something like the SpaceX Starship is likely to be a lot faster to build and deploy, and probably safer to boot. A bit small for a longish voyage, especially if you make the walls a foot thick like the ISS, but it's supposed to have more pressurized volume than the ISS, so a small crew shouldn't have problems.
For a long term solution, you might be interested in Mars Cyclers - put an asteroid on a orbit synchronized to regularly pass near both Earth and Mars, and then gradually turn it into a giant, extremely well shielded cruise ship/mining base that never sees any further acceleration other than minor orbital corrections. Then your landing ships ferry passengers to and from it when it passes near one planet, and it doesn't matter so much that it takes months or years to make the journey in near-perfect safety. (Most proposed orbits make the journey in one direction relatively quickly, and then spend most of the remainder of their orbit essentially waiting for everything to come into alignment again.)