Dangers of a particle strike in space?

teuchter · Dec 18, 2007

I have heard that if you build a space craft capable of traveling light years in open space, that it could easily suffer catastrophic damage by colliding with some sort of particle or debris. What sort of debris or particle could pose a threat?

yevaud · Dec 18, 2007

The higher your velocity, the harder even simple gas molecules strike you. They strike hard. Remember, KE = (1/2)mv2. When they hit you, they cause a cascade of particles and energy. Energy meaning, at some point, hard radiation. See what I mean? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 18, 2007

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/cold_plasma_000724.html As Yevaud pointed out, if you intend to cruise around the galaxy at high speed, I strongly suggest that you invest in a good set of shields. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

alokmohan · Dec 18, 2007

Travelling at light speed ?You become heavy and loose fun.

schmack · Dec 18, 2007

hi Yevaud, what exactly IS hard radiation? as opposed to soft radiation? other radiation? cheers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups Gimme some Schmack Schmack! </div>

yevaud · Dec 18, 2007

Well, there are various medical definitions. Basically it would be considered that some radiation is highly ionizing and some is not. X-Rays versus low intensity UV, for example. The harder particles and gas molecules hit, the more likely they will be ionizing, that is to say, disrupting cell structures, disarranging DNA, interfering with neurological pathways, what have you. At some point in finite time, at some finite velocity, they would be hitting the hull of the ship so hard that they would be producing cascades of primary, secondary and tertiary radiation. Gamma Rays, X-Rays, very high velocity free particles, that sort of thing. Entirely not good for living organisms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

robnissen · Dec 18, 2007

At any significant fraction of c, this becomes a HUGE problem. One possibility would be to a have a LARGE, thick ice sheet in front of the ship, as it gets struck and shattered, more water is sprayed onto the shield which would immediately freeze, but you would go through LOTS of water to keep replinishing the shield. So far, there are no good methods for protecting a ship at any fraction of c.

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

If you ran ito a grain of sand an that speed, it would pass through the spacecraft. I don't care what kind of shields you have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

arkady · Dec 18, 2007

I've often pondered that question myself. Recently read of research that proposes that near lightspeed travel might actually be within the realm of possibility. (at least with respect to the collision issue) A quick google search turned up this article. Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation "The field equation of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has never before been solved to calculate the gravitational field of a mass moving close to the speed of light. Felber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. The closer a mass gets to the speed of light, the stronger its 'antigravity beam' becomes. Felber's calculations show how to use the repulsion of a body speeding through space to provide the enormous energy needed to accelerate massive payloads quickly with negligible stress. The new solution of Einstein's field equation shows that the payload would 'fall weightlessly' in an antigravity beam even as it was accelerated close to the speed of light." It is beyond my understanding whether this sounds plausible or not, just thought I'd mention it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "The choice is the Universe, or nothing ... " - H.G Wells </div>

tdamskov · Dec 18, 2007

Up to a couple percent of light speed, it's not a technical problem to protect against small dust grains and particles. One needs to simply scale up the protection system already used on spacecraft today. A few layers of millimeter thin glass and plexiglass is capable of withstanding a speck of paint hitting at ~7 km/sec. The trick is to use multiple layers, where each layer absorbs some of the impact while scattering debris in a cone-like path behind it, dissipating the energy over a larger area. The next layers progressively absorb or scatter the resulting particles. Even very fragile shields are capable of withstanding suprisingly energetic impactors. Of course, getting two hits in the same spot can cause problems

.. Another idea is to use lasers to vaporize incoming objects. When it comes to interstellar particles, the scientists still disagree on the density that we should find, by orders of magnitude.

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

Interesting, thanx. I hadn't considered that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

Ummm, 7 km/sec is 0.00002 C Kinetic energy = 1/2 Mass times velocity squared. So that same paint chip, at 0.1 C would have 18,342,392 times as much energy. And at 0.1 C, how likely is it that you could detect, track, and vaporize that chip since you are traveling at 18,600 miles per second. Not very, IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 18, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And at 0.1 C, how likely is it that you could detect, track, and vaporize that chip since you are traveling at 18,600 miles per second. <hr /></blockquote> I think we'd need some kind of plasma shields in the form of strong current carrying double layers that could ionize the material on contact and deflect the leftover charged particles away from the ship with powerful EM fields. It would act like a type of mini-magnetosphere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

But now you're moving a mini magnetoshere through all the electrical current that pervades space <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> That would cause problems, eh. Where's that petard? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 18, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But now you're moving a mini magnetoshere through all the electrical current that pervades space That would cause problems, eh. Where's that petard? <hr /></blockquote> Now, now, don't be too hasty. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The Earth's magnetosphere has to survive all the electrical current that pervades it's environment, as does the sun's heliosphere. If you wanted to look at it from an EU perspective, we would have to start mapping out the current flows of the universe and we would need to learn to ride the currents and "go with the flow". By "going with the flow" so to speak, we could probably eliminate most possible collisions scenarios since the current stream would provide protection from external, or slow moving particles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

Just more for you to think about <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 18, 2007

I like your style MW. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

"The Earth's magnetosphere has to survive all the electrical current that pervades it's environment, as does the sun's heliosphere. " Of course, it's not moving at 0.1 C against the local current flow, is it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 18, 2007

Well, no. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Then again it does receive "hits" from particles at very high speeds. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarstorm_speed_040614.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 18, 2007

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/10jun_newstorm.htm Some of the stronger storms have ejected particles at a significant portion of the speed of light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

Yes, but the earth has an atmosphere and magnetosphere to protect it. Any magnetosphere around a spacecraft will be very puny by comparison, and I suspect, by effect on the "protectee". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 18, 2007

Well, ok, I have to agree that the lack of an atmosphere is definitely a "problem" alright. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I suspect that a highly charged "shiposphere" might be more useful at shielding us from high speed charged particles rather being particularly adept at deflecting a cloud of "sand". That's why I like the idea of "going with the flow". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I do recall seeing a test on NASA TV that was done on an aluminum "foam" that looked very interesting. The aluminum sheet seemed to absorb the blow of a small high speed particle pretty well. I would suspect we'd need a number of different shielding technologies to survive for any amount of time in space cruising at high speeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

tdmikey · Dec 18, 2007

Hi, troll to the forums, scared poster in fear of sounding stupid and avid thinker. Quote from Meteor Wayne "Of course, it's not moving at 0.1 C against the local current flow, is it? " Wouldnt that matter depending on what perspective you are looking at it? From humans perspective Earth is moving at 18mph around the Sun. And I am taking a gander its the same from the suns perspective?? What about the galaxies perspective? Then the center of the universe... Could Earth be actually moving at the speed of light or faster? If so then could we create an atmosphere around a ship to emulate it? Mike "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know. You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window. " "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know. You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window." "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 18, 2007

Welcome to Space.com! In this case, we were discussing the motion of a magnetosphere against the local electric/magnetic field. That's different than motion relatve to the sun and galaxy. The EM motion there is less than 0.1 C I think. I'm sure MM will correct me if I'm wrong, as he should. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

teuchter · Dec 18, 2007

What an amazing array of information. Thanks everyone.

Dangers of a particle strike in space?

teuchter

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

schmack

Guest

yevaud

Guest

robnissen

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

arkady

Guest

tdamskov

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

tdmikey

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

teuchter

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page