Cloaking tech for cosmic radiation protection ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EarthlingX

Guest
I ll try this on my own, to see how far can i get. :?
After a day on Wikipedia, short answer is 'No way'.
1. Protons in cosmic radiation have a very large energy and technology is just not here yet.
2. They come as a really nasty very energetic particles which when interacting with atmosphere fall apart into smaller particles and something that even resembles waves/quanta/energy packets is way down in that hierarchy and not a big part of it.
3. They prefer to organize themselves on magnetic field lines, which probably doesn't apply.

Article also states that :
The new method's main disadvantage "is that it appears you must know in advance everything about the incoming wave," including when the pulse begins, and the frequencies and amplitudes of the waves within the pulse, Milton says. That might require placement of numerous sensors to detect incoming seismic waves or tsunamis.
so you would have to know about every single particle coming your way to be able to counteract, even if you could.
One could perhaps organize that particle flux with electro-magnetic field, but then it's not this tech anymore, or is it ?
Would creating high positive charge on the outside of a protected object divert that flux ? Probably would, but energy required would be very high.

It looks like a shot in the dark, but it's still nagging me ... :( :?
 
N

nimbus

Guest
There was a blurb, maybe one year ago, about a magnetic shielding technology in development that showed enough promise to satisfy shielding requirements for long missions like transits to Mars on current tech. Development time was on the order of +-20 years, or right around the time we'd be getting to Mars being feasible.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
This was less than a year ago and it says 15-20 years:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1597 ... s_mission/
document:
http://www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk/d ... amford.pdf

Little more than a year ago (2005)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/308/1
It probably died when NIAC was shut down. Maybe we see it again ...

Another older:
http://dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-03/FILES/PDF/857.pdf
Idea seems to be, to use magnetic field and electron plasma for protection.

Another link, with a lots of documents to chew.
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~Simon ... index.html
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
I had some trouble finding a reference for cloaking on Wikipedia, so i m putting a link here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device


Here is one from Space.com about plasma cloaking:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 00724.html
Authors page:
http://www.ece.odu.edu/~mlarouss/

From wiki: " However, generating plasma in air is too expensive and a feasible alternative is generating plasma between thin membranes instead ".
Hm... interesting :)

Well, there is still a little problem with energy required, so i m not saying anything nuclear, because that's another story, i will rather check meta materials, see where it leads me.
 
M

MiamiBeach

Guest
I read somewhere(think it was here on Space.com) that one concept was to double hull a space craft, fill the space between hulls with liquid? water. How deep the water needs to be I cant remember. Spaceships need to be built in space and somewhere there is H2O in low gravity.
 
V

Vax

Guest
First off, NASA needs to get all the space junk out of earths orbit. By what means I have no idea.

It sounds a little difficult and probably not a good idea, but I think a good solution to shielding ships from any possible future collisions would be to add powerful magnetic alloys to the hull (as primitive as it sounds). Opposite magnets could then be added to equipment used by astronauts so that the objects will be repelled away from the ship.

Granted I know it would be a little difficult to push an object away using magnets at a cruise speed of about 60,000 mph... But we might as well stick to something we have a decent understanding of; that being magnetism. It's not too crazy, and it won't protect you from particles from the sun, but it sounds a bit more practical than other theories.

The only problem I'm not sure about is whether or not it would compromise the integrity of the ships hull, or offset the weight or balance. But those issues can be easily recalculated.

Any information on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
 
A

aynstein

Guest
Actually your magplow has the potential to offer protection against cosmic radiation. Magnetic fields can be used to effect radiation and other sun-snot like earth does. It may prove easier to use "space junk" to herd other space junk either out of the way or into a firy death, if it ever became unavoidable. For now I think it is easy enough to work around and be aware of.

I am speculating of course but I would imagine the effect on the "ship" would depend almost entirly on the momentum of the space-debri and the ships momentum. If the ship is going 60,000 kph in the same or similiar direction as the junk, no problem. If not, and it was a russian toilet seat (space junk) and our current shuttle (also space junk :) ) heading at each other at 60,000 kph, hitting at 120,000 kph... no shuttle. But I think your point way with the magnet ... and that is a fun idea but too many variables to give you anything but a hot air answer.


cheers.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Vax":19y4rzug said:
First off, NASA needs to get all the space junk out of earths orbit. By what means I have no idea.
No biggie:
Orbital Fuel Depots. Orbital Transfer Vehicle. Google a bit, check wikipedia.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
What about this:
Could we forget (as much as possible) about particle nature of particles (yes, it hurts) and just treat them as waves ?
It looks to me we could ...
Compensate for not knowing where they are with high harmonic frequencies, something like music or starlight ?
That is also kind of a yes.
Protect the crew compartments from flow of plasma with meta materials ?
It looks promising, at least to me ...

If one would want to do this, we are probably talking superconducting electromagnets, not necessarily as cold as telescopes, but big anyway.

Could the same magnets be also used for electric propulsion ?
No idea ...

There is also a little problem with a lot of power required for such a ship, so i ll say it, nuclear.

What are other show stoppers, except usual, money and politics ?
 
V

vaxheadroom

Guest
Magnetic repulsion falls off with 1/dist^3 so it doesn't effect anything until you're REAL close, and then it's probably too late to do enough deflection to have any affect (hoping I got affect/effect right in that sentence so the grammer nazi's don't open fire). The further away you start to deflect things, the less you have to deflect them (the less angular momenteum you have to impart) so it would help greatly to have any magnets for solar wind deflection at some significant distance from the ship - maybe even in formation flying, instead of attached - possibly a deployable once in cruise with station-keeping thrusters, then re-join with mothership for any boost phases.
That's a good tech demonstrator mission in cislunar-space...hmm...
 
X

xXTheOneRavenXx

Guest
When we are talking about the amount of energy required for plasma shielding, or any other amplified shielding against say cosmic radiation why is the amount of energy required to do this calculated as being "too great"? Please let me know if I'm out in left field on this one, but all that's required is a magnetic source powered by the vary radiation that it's protecting the object from. Say for instance your protecting a space craft during it's mission to mars. The device absorbs cosmic radiation through say ceramic tiles (just as an example). The energy is then stored until it reaches the level at which is required to power the magnetic field Of course the magnetic field cannot encompase the absorbing tiles or whatever your utilizing as a gathering/storage mechanism, but no energy is required to take into space as radiation is everywhere in space... your just utilizing what's already there. I'm sure enough energy could be absorbed into the tiles (or whatever the case may be) while the craft were still in orbit around the Earth. All that's required is that the output energy to power the magnetic field does not exceed the amount of energy being absorbed... or what is stored. It can be done. Solar panels used to power homes already utilize this technology, just on a smaller scale. Homes can go for days at a time with only utilizing the stored energy during cloudy or stormy periods. I would have to assume that since solar panels here on Earth absorb more than enough energy to run a home for days, a craft in space that's more exposed to the radiation would have that much more to utilize for a magnetic field or whatever type of shielding the case may be. Not saying this is the case, however I think at times science makes this more difficult then what they have to be.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
vaxheadroom":u0ubzujm said:
Magnetic repulsion falls off with 1/dist^3 so it doesn't effect anything until you're REAL close, and then it's probably too late to do enough deflection to have any affect
I should have probably put some abstracts next to papers to which i provided links, but i was trying to avoid clutter, so here is one, that might apply :
Evaluation of Magnetic Shielding of Interplanetary Spacecraft
from Cosmic Radiation
D.F. Smart, M.A. Shea
CSPAR, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
Abstract
The continuous exposure to cosmic radiation is a possible constraint on
long duration (multi year) manned interplanetary missions. The magnetic shielding
concept is often considered as a possible method to reduce the radiation dose
from the cosmic radiation. We have evaluated possible magnetic field configurations
to determine what is required to reduce, by one-half, the cosmic ray flux
impacting a spacecraft. This evaluation has been accomplished by tracing cosmic
ray trajectories through different magnetic field configurations. We find that the
magnetic field gradient is the primary factor that controls the magnetic shielding
effectiveness. A pseudo dipole configuration (1/r^3) magnetic field gradient
requires unreasonably large magnetic fields. A (1/r^2) magnetic field gradient is
capable of much better magnetic shielding. A (1/r) magnetic field gradient would
be best for magnetic shielding. We have evaluated possible mini-magnetosphere
configurations to determine the magnetic shielding that might be attainable. The
mini-magnetosphere configurations evaluated are consistent with a (1/r2) magnetic
field gradient.
Paper:
http://dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-03/FILES/PDF/857.pdf

If i understand principle behind magnetic shielding correctly, you get better magnetic field gradients with electron plasma, which means bigger bubble.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
xXTheOneRavenXx":1h8t3p0z said:
When we are talking about the amount of energy required for plasma shielding, or any other amplified shielding against say cosmic radiation why is the amount of energy required to do this calculated as being "too great"? Please let me know if I'm out in left field on this one, but all that's required is a magnetic source powered by the vary radiation that it's protecting the object from. Say for instance your protecting a space craft during it's mission to mars. The device absorbs cosmic radiation through say ceramic tiles (just as an example). The energy is then stored until it reaches the level at which is required to power the magnetic field Of course the magnetic field cannot encompase the absorbing tiles or whatever your utilizing as a gathering/storage mechanism, but no energy is required to take into space as radiation is everywhere in space... your just utilizing what's already there. I'm sure enough energy could be absorbed into the tiles (or whatever the case may be) while the craft were still in orbit around the Earth. All that's required is that the output energy to power the magnetic field does not exceed the amount of energy being absorbed... or what is stored. It can be done. Solar panels used to power homes already utilize this technology, just on a smaller scale. Homes can go for days at a time with only utilizing the stored energy during cloudy or stormy periods. I would have to assume that since solar panels here on Earth absorb more than enough energy to run a home for days, a craft in space that's more exposed to the radiation would have that much more to utilize for a magnetic field or whatever type of shielding the case may be. Not saying this is the case, however I think at times science makes this more difficult then what they have to be.
I must say, i see no argument with this.
I was just assuming, wild guessing, because of high energy of solar plasma particles, comparing them to energies in colliders, which are huge machines, that power/energy required would be high. I checked wiki, googled, but not found much. Do you have any link ?
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
nimbus":2l707juy said:
Possible solutions from the other end of the problem as well:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07 ... 247830215/
Yes, but i m trying to stay in the area of cloaking tech application for the same problem.
Like using meta materials to protect electronics, as an example.

There is also open question about mass protection, but i hope i can get to it latter, after getting some more input about energy requirement.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
In my search for energy requirements i will start with this:
(The interaction of a flowing plasma with a dipole magnetic field: measurements and modelling of a diamagnetic cavity relevant to spacecraft protection)
http://www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk/d ... amford.pdf

From introduction:
The solar wind consists of a plasma characterised by low densities (0.1-2x106m-3), moderate temperatures (10 to 300eV) and fast/supersonic (300- 1000km/s) directed flows; the actual solar wind output is highly variable on time scales of milliseconds upwards due to the localised and turbulent origins of the energetic plasma from the surface of the Sun. The solar magnetic field is carried with the out flowing plasma and is of the order of 2-10nT at the distance of the Earth’s orbit. Of greatest concern from a manned spacecraft safety standpoint are the energetic (10-100 MeV) heavy solar wind particles of which ~90% are protons, 9% are alphas, with electrons making up the majority of the remaining mass.
From experimental apparatus:
The plasma in this system consists of a supersonic plasma beam (Mach number > 3) with peak densities and temperatures in the range 1017-1019 and 5-7eV respectively.
This plasma is slower, colder and less energetic, which probably means that power requirements would have to be adjusted, for a real thing.

More from the same section:
The solenoidal field coils, connected in series with a single return conductor to cancel the error field due to the connecting straps, have inside diameters of 28cm and are placed 14.5cm apart: the maximum field at the centre of the machine for the work reported here is approximately 0.07 Tesla. For these studies, this linear field represents the analogue of the interplanetary magnetic field.
But 0.07 Tesla is a little more than 2-10nT ? hm.... It's also easier to see, what's going on. Let's read some more.

This part is a bit too long to quote, so i will just note it:
3.2 Interaction with static dipole field

This is a link to cloaking technology:
3.3 Interaction with pulsed dipole field
This source, outlined in section 2, operates with current pulses of up to 3.5kA of approximately 5-10ms duration and with characteristic rise times of approximately 100μs. The field at the pole corresponding to these currents can approach 2 Tesla, approximately an order of magnitude greater than in the static field experiments.
This 3.5 kA and 2 Tesla are a bit scary, but let's see what happens ...

From the same section:
While much further work is necessary to analyse this configuration, it is striking that the apparent field required to form this cavity appears to be much greater than that needed to sustain it.
Some sort of capacitor to kick start the bubble and then a lot less to sustain it ? Sweet. :) There is also 'much further work is necessary' in the same sentence, so i ll try to curb my enthusiasm for a moment.

More from the same section:
Whilst the origin of this effect is uncertain at present, it may have important practical implications for the power requirements for possible future spacecraft protection systems.
Do we need to know origin of the effect to exploit it ? Not necessarily, i think.

This looks like one part of equation on a road to find power requirements.
 
X

xXTheOneRavenXx

Guest
Might be a silly question, and I am no mathametician but wouldn't all you need is to know:

Amount of (plasma energy available (ie. type of plasma and initial energy rate) - tile absorbtion rate) - (capacity of energy storage - energy output required) - (energy rate required at specific shielding strengths)???

Particle exciters would tell you where pockets of greater energy is located within a given proximity to the craft, though these too would require energy to power. I'm not to sure that this problem would be that difficult to figure out for the brainiacs at NASA and other space agencies.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Here is another piece :
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html

I checked particle generators a bit and found out that i m starring at one (CRT) and that most appropriate for comparing would probably be to linear particle generators, which don't work in 1 TeV range as LHC. Those that could apply are used in hospitals, i think they should be somewhere close. Not that big in short.

I don't have any info on how would VASIMR work with this arrangement, but i hope whole system could be combined.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
xXTheOneRavenXx":2efoiwmk said:
Might be a silly question, and I am no mathametician but wouldn't all you need is to know:

Amount of (plasma energy available (ie. type of plasma and initial energy rate) - tile absorbtion rate) - (capacity of energy storage - energy output required) - (energy rate required at specific shielding strengths)???

Particle exciters would tell you where pockets of greater energy is located within a given proximity to the craft, though these too would require energy to power. I'm not to sure that this problem would be that difficult to figure out for the brainiacs at NASA and other space agencies.
Like this:
( Epa - tar) - (Qst - Eout) - Esh

Epa = plasma energy available
tar = tile absorbtion rate
Qst = capacity of energy storage
Eout= energy output required
Esh = energy rate required at specific shielding strengths

It looks suspiciously interesting, maybe some physicist could show us some light ?
Do we know yet about Esh / shield strength ?
 
N

nimbus

Guest
The Nasaspaceflight forum's advanced concepts subforum might have answers to some of your questions.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Check this ( "HZE Particle shielding using confined magnetic fields" ) from 1983 :
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~Simon ... end_83.pdf

Here is talk about required shield rigidity, energy requirements, there are equations that can apply to different radiation environments and so on.

I will try to get it out, so please check a bit later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts