Plasma bubble could protect astronauts on Mars trip

[bananas]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9567-plasma-bubble-could-protect-astronauts-on-mars-trip.html

Plasma bubble could protect astronauts on Mars trip

* 17:01 17 July 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* David Shiga

A bubble of plasma could shield astronauts from radiation during long journeys through space, researchers are suggesting. If the idea proves viable, it means heavy metal protective panels could be replaced by a plasma shield of just a few grams.

<snip>

Slough says the problem could be solved with just a few grams of hydrogen in the form of a plasma surrounding the spacecraft. NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) recently awarded Slough's team $75,000 to explore the feasibility of the idea.

<snip>

There would need to be a wire mesh outside the spacecraft and enclosing the plasma cloud. Electricity supplied to the mesh would keep an electrical current running in the plasma cloud and help confined it near the spacecraft.

<snip>

The wire mesh would need to be made of superconducting material and it would need to be able to operate at relatively high temperatures, since it would be heated by sunlight. This sort of superconducting wire is available commercially, Slough says.

<snip>

[evlbstrd]

1. So damned cool.

Science fiction becomes fact. Again.

[dysfunctional press]

2. it's not fact yet.

again.

[evlbstrd]

3. As the Shrub said,

"Just wait."

[ngant17]

4. radiation is only one hazard

What about collisions with meteors and/or space junk? Some can be small but travelling as fast as the proverbial speeding bullet. Actually in space, meteors are traveling thousands of times faster than speeding bullets (with radioactive matter much more denser than armor-piercing projectiles), with no air resistance to slow them down in the vacuum of space, and it only takes one small hit on the craft in the right spot, to punch a small hole in its metal skin, critically effecting the air and temperature controls inside the space craft.

Also the problem with long-term exposure of bones in weightless environment.

Outer space was never meant for human habitation, and neither for human exploration. It is a very hostile place.

[qazplm]

6. hostile but survivable

we will figure it out.

[rman]

8. The radiation makes human travel to mars impossible,

unless a lightweight shield can be devised.

The risk of meteor impact has long been understood and quantified. As was the case with the moon explorations, the risk of the craft being fatally hit can not be excluded, but it's not a problem that makes travel to mars impossible. After all, many unmanned craft have made the trip successfully.

[ngant17]

9. the probability of meteor hits

The 'risk factor' of meteors, I am not convinced that NASA has calculated any of it right. The universe has had, maybe, 12 billion years since the Big Bang, to randomly scatter an incalculable number of debris across all sectors of the universe. Of all shapes and sizes from microscopic to absolutely gigantic.

We've only looked into outer space for a very short time, maybe 50 years. You can't make any accurate probabilities about random meteor strikes based on events that happened 12 billion years ago, at most you can guess-timate what has happened to spacecraft in the last 50 years, but that doesn't have any bearing on the true reality of the number of meteors blasting thru the universe at any given moment in time.

It will always be a great unknown. It will never be accurately quantified IMHO. And there is no amount of armour which can really protect you, because you have to add too much weight to lift-off from earth.

[rman]

17. If you know something that NASA doesn't know you should inform

them. Other space agencies around the world might be interested as well.

[ngant17]

19. doesn't that mean NASA is incapable of rational thinking?

If NASA couldn't rationally and logically arrive at the same conclusion, based on simple thinking, would it really make a difference if I informed them of their incapability of applying such knowledge in the field of statistics and probability?

As I stated before, how can you make a probability based on events which occurred 12 billion years ago, and interpolate that to determine a statistic with the relatively-feeble amount of data you could accumulate in a fraction of that time, say, 50 years?

All NASA has done is to calculate the probablity of meteroite hits based on the maxiumum of 50 years of empirical experience. That simply gives us a 'false sense of security', which is just as bad as its opposite, a 'false alarm'. It is to NASA's advantage to low-ball the numbers anyway.

My position is that it is not possible at this point in our understanding (given 50 years of space exploration) to accurately estimate the risk factor of meteorite strikes on a spaceship floating in the cosmos. Another 50 years would possible help, or it possibly wouldn't make any more difference than today. 100 years, 1000 years, that is still a infinitesimally-small fraction of time in terms of cosmic events.

[rman]

23. It's not just a matter of how often spacecraft have been hit so far.

The risk depends on numbers and size distribution, both of which are know pretty accurately.
In earth orbit there's a greater chance of being hit by space debris than by any meteorite.
It's a matter of calculation, not one of estimation.

[ngant17]

28. I'm only interpolating events

To me, the risk of meteorites in space, it's like trying to estimate the probablity of getting hit by machine gun fire on the battlefield, given that someone is randomly spraying bullets in all directions with no aiming in mind. The bullets are armour-piercing, like depleted uranium only much denser.

50 years of empirical research into outer space, in particular related to the number of meteroids buzzing out there, that's not much of an event compared to 12 billion years (approx. age of universe).

Trying to guess the probablity based on a time-slice of 50 years, out of an event that spans 12 billion years, well, that seems to me like spending a fraction of a second of a 24-hour day in a war-zone, let's suppose you are wandering aimlessly inside a dangerous battlefield for a couple of milli-seconds(say the machine-gun fire will last for 24 hours), and the fact that you didn't get wounded or killed in that fraction of a second that you spend on the battlefield, how can you be reasonably sure that this fraction of a second is representative of what it would be like if you spent any other time on the battlefield (of outer space)? That's how I'm trying to understand the risks of meteorites in outer space. NASA has to make assumptions based on what limited amout of data it has to date. And I'm only saying that 50 years isn't very much time to make a good guess, even a 1000 years won't be enough, given the fact that the universe has had about 12 billion years to randomly scatter meteroids in all directions in outer space.

Just because the 'terrorist threat' of meteroid impact in outer space is low (or guarded, or elevated, or high, or severe, to use that silly DHS terminology), that doesn't mean it can suddenly and dramatically increase or decrease unpredictably later. Right now we have this false sense of security to make us feel it's all okay.

I suppose a guess from NASA is better than saying, "we really have no way of being sure, and we probably never will."

[rman]

30. The bullets can be detected even if they don't hit you

Space craft get hit by micro meteors (dust-size) all the time. They are specifically shielded for that.
Meteor showers (predictable local dramatic increase) are a good indicator of bow many sand-grain sized meteors there are.
Pebble-size meteors and comets tend to explode in the upper atmosphere and these explosions are detected by early warning satellites designed to detect nuclear explosions. Still larger meteors do usually impact on earth's surface and can also be detected. Larger meteors still leave craters that last for many 1000's of years.
So the quantity and size distribution is known pretty accurately, and there's no particular reason why it would be vastly different in the future (certainly the next few centuries or so) than it has been during the period of measurement.
What you call a "guess" is in fact a well educated guess. No guarantees of course, but if that were to discourage scientific investigation, we'd still be living in the stone age.

[mainegreen]

10. Similar things could be said for sailors in the 1400s!

How many ships were lost due to storms, iceburgs, doldrums, or other environmental factors? How many sailors died due to weird (at the time) health problems at sea? Lots! But it was worth it, and we got better at crossing the ocean with time.

I suspect many astronauts will die over time, but how can we not risk it?

[ngant17]

11. exploring earth vrs. exploring space

I think one of the mistakes people make is that they associate the exploration of space with the previous explorations of Earth. Columbus used free energy (old-fashioned wind technology and sail power) to ‘discover' the New World (‘discovery', as in a narrow-minded West European sense, the native peoples of Turtle Island never could have discovered Europe, of course). Wind and sails cost Columbus nothing in terms of the energy being harnessed, although it must be noted that the Spanish monarchy financed the trip - built the ships, loaned him the money for the manpower and provisions, ect.

NASA is always in denial mode, it will never admit to itself that it's an enormous and unnecessary drain on public expenditures. NASA's rocket engineers are for the most part people who have lived their entire lives on public welfare. They don't understand simple economics and never will.


Granted that space exploration with robots can be done at 10% of the cost of human exploration (due to the fact that life support systems are unnecessary).

If we screw up this planet from nuclear wars, pollution and unsustainable economic systems, what's the point of migrating to Mars and starting the whole process over again? We should try to live on Earth for the long run. After we can learn to live here in a peaceful and rational manner, maybe we could consider the other planets.

[ngant17]

12. economics 101

If the gamma radiation doesn't kill you in outer space, if your bones don't crumble and turn you into some kind of pathetic jelly fish, and supposing you get lucky and no meteorites hit you, if none of that gets you in outer space, then the pure economics will certainly finish you off before anything else. There's no way you are going to make money, there's no profit incentive.

If you really want to go into space, you should start thinking and acting like communists. Read and study your Marx and Lenin. I've yet to see any business model which tries to make a profit out there.

The only thing a human being can do in outer space is to cooperate with other human beings in outer space. Build a not-for-profit commune on Mars. There's no place in outer space for capitalism. There never will be. Not until you find a way to finance the costs such that there is a return on investment for the Earthlings.

Privatize NASA, might as well. We're privatizing the internet, the water supply, the prison-industrial complex. The post office. See how long NASA avoids bankruptancy when it is in the hands of private investors.

[qazplm]

13. no profit incentive???

Are you kidding me?

There's enough rare and raw minerals and materials in the asteroid belt alone to make space travel and commerce wildly profitable.

Population pressure will make terraforming more and more of an option in the decades and centuries to come.

There are all sorts of profit potentials in space.

[ngant17]

15. not kidding

Help make a believer out of me. When do we call for the privatization of NASA so some lucky capitalists can reap all the windfall profits? Any hot stock tips I should know about?

Population pressure won't be a problem with WWIII on the horizon. Let's just keep invading countries and encourage the nuclear arms race will every other country, especially with suicidal sects that are gaining popularity thru various religious fanatics these days.

"Terraforming"? I though we were already doing this to planet Earth with global warming, we can make more ice-caps melt so there will be more room for the aquatic life. Humans will have to learn how to swim a lot and spend more quality time in the ocean. Also, increase CO2 output to make Earth more habitable for trees and other forms of botanical life.

Lots of talk about "profits potentials" up there.

There are locations on the moon which have a composition of 10% titanium dioxide, titanium is an important element with a high demand but it's relatively scarce on earth. Ideally you would want to mine the titanium dioxide on the moon, extract it, and load it on a space-craft and delivered back to earth, such that it can be sold at a more competitive price than what you can get for titanium where it is mined on the earth.

Here on earth, the production (in 2003 numbers) of titanium dioxide is approximately 50,000 tons per year at a market value of $600 million (that's about $12/lb). Depending on the quality, titanium-based ore extraction can cost as low as $12,000 per metric ton, that's even less, $6/lb. In the future, titanium production on earth could be cost-competitive with the market of high-grade stainless steel. And there will always be a demand for titanium. It's as light as aluminum and elastic as steel. The newest US F22 fighter-jet is 39% by weight of titanium, probably the highest proportion of titanium of any aircraft. Russia, Kazakhstan and Japan now account for an estimated 75% of world production of titanium, average prices could reach $8.50/kg by 2008.

Don't think you could make it profitable by mining it from space. Even with private studies that suggest a cost of $10,000 a pound to get things into low-Earth orbit, it wouldn't be economical to mine the moon even if the whole thing were made of titanium.

To their credit, the Chinese have expressed interest in mining a cheap form of helium H3 found on the moon, but it likely would be cheaper to gather the helium from seawater.

Outside of H3 and titanium, I can't think of anything more valuable. But even these 2 rare minerals wouldn't compete against Earth-based production.

[qazplm]

16. Im continually amazed

by people who look at today and think things are always going to be this way, technology is going to always be this way, we will never advance, we will never learn more, we will never get better at doing things, when history is all but 100 percent those very things.

Population surges after wars, it surged after WWII and it will do so after "WWIII" if we even have one.

We are getting better at monitoring our emissions and in other areas, certainly better than circa 1950 dont you think???
Heck even better than 1990.

I dont think you need to "privatize" NASA. What you need is a private space commerce in CONJUNCTION with a governmental entity like NASA.

And it will happen, but as in most things, business will wait until government sets up the infrastructure and takes the risks before spending the money. Just like it was government not business that built interstates, it wasnt business but government that initially built the internet, it will be government that builds the beginnings of space travel, work, exploration and commerce, and like the interstate and the web, business will come in once the risks go down.

I am going to assume you are in favor, and this could be a wrong assumption, of governmental research and investing in alternative energy and fuels?

If so, I am also going to assume it is because you recognize that if we wait for business to do it, its going to just take longer. BUT, if government establishes things just enough, business will step up to finish the job.

[ngant17]

18. I'm for space exploration

I'm still firmly entrenched in the JFK ideal of co-operative space exploration with other nations. This was his last dream, his last speech at the UN on Sept., 1963. Before his life was cut short.

I don't think we have progressed to the point where we are mentally- or psychologically-capable of co-operative space exploration. Yes, the ISS is a step in the right direction, but we shouldn't just work with the Russians. And heaven forbid that we should be in competion with the rest of the world in outer space. We have to evolve into a higher mindset. It may be that capitalism and competition will turn out to be some excess baggage which we will have to discard when we finally do explore space.

Just looking at space exploration in terms of "energy expended", the work required to move a body from the surface of the earth to infinity is about 6.0 x 10^7 J/kg which can be translated into about 25,000 mph. That's an enormous amout of "energy expense". I don't see where you are going to recover this energy in space. We don't need to use this much energy to mine precious elements on Earth. That's why I can't see any profit coming out of space. Until you have some way of creating a marvelous new kind of "free energy" to get into space. Until then, we will have to accept the fact that space exploration will be a losing proposition, a liability and not an asset.

[qazplm]

22. plenty of free energy in space

solar energy, light pressure, both can power and move ships.

Moons, planets and asteroids chock full of materials for building, life support and propulsion.

Not to mention fusion and other more exotic things.

The energy costs are not even close to being prohibitive.

[ngant17]

26. economics of space travel

From Wikipedia: "Bulk costs to geosynchronous orbit are currently about $20,000/kg for a Zenit-3SL launch."

Fuel makes up over 90% of the weight of most rockets. It takes a lot of energy to
accelerate a payload 20,000 mph into an altitude of 170 miles where you aren't subject to earth's gravitation.

Assume there are NO risks of space travel itself (forget about meteroids, gamma radiation, bone degradation for personnel in manned missions), there's always the possibility that the fuel will blow up on the gantry or immediately thereafter (i.e., Challenger), so there's insurance costs themselves which are enormous for a rocket launch. Lloyd's of London is about the only company willing to insure rockets.

And don't forget there's billions of dollars that go into developing and launching rockets. I've seen nothing to suggest any of this money will ever be recovered, no matter how much 'free energy' you can access in space. No matter how much H3 or rare earth minerals you can mine up there and bring back.

[rman]

31. How about the economics of science?

Just how much is spend on scientific space exploration compared to say, wars? It's negligible.

[qazplm]

34. So that is why

you start using the moon to mine the materials you need for propulsion. Helium-3 for example. Oxygen probably. Hydrogen.

You only have to launch some things from the Earth. And only the first couple of times. Everything else, eventually, will be launced from the moon, or mined from asteroids rich in natural materials.

If money wasnt being "recovered" why do you think SO many civilian spaceplanes are being built? Why do you think so many are investing?

The tourism dollars alone will provide a decent chunk. Imagine new materials evolving from space being patented. A new type of high altitude commercial plane that gets you from LA to London in 3-4 hours. Imagine if you funded the towing of small, resource rich asteroid into high Earth orbit. The money you'd glean from more or less "owning" and mining that asteroid would make the costs of researching, calculating and attaching "tugs" to nudge it into the proper orbital path miniscule. How about a large solar collector in space, collecting light from the sun and reradiating it back down as microwave energy? Or even radiating it towards the moon or nearby craft as another power source?

I havent even scratched the surface on ideas.

[Ready4Change]

21. Hmmm.

You've clearly never carried a basket of eggs.

[ngant17]

27. you mean to say, I shouldn't carry them in one basket?

good advice, but does that mean you try and shoot up a bunch of rockets at once, in the hopes that at least one of them makes it into outer space?

[Odin2005]

20. The dangers of going to Mars are exaggerated.

Planetary Scientist Robert Zubrin claims that the dangers are exaggerated because every little intrest inside NASA wants to have a part of the action even if it not needed, so they need to rationalize thier pork by exaggerating the risks. we could go to Mars saftely for about $30 billion per mission, not the $800 billion plans that were on the drawing board in the early '90s.

[Ready4Change]

25. I might be devoured by a cougar.

Better not leave the house today.

[ngant17]

29. risk of attack by wild animal

this risk is greater if you were in a jungle, or swimming in a shark-infested body of water, as compared to walking alone at night in Yonkers, NYC, where the risks of attack by gangs of human beings are greater than an attack by couger or alligator there.

[Occulus]

5. Oooh, now that IS cool

and I'm sure a Mars mission isn't the only place this sort of shielding could be used.

[sutz12]

7. If it works, it would be universal for all space missions.

We would still need an artificial gravity system for the Mars mission. The loss of bone mass is a very real problem.

[Occulus]

32. Why do I imagine something spinning as a necessity for such as that? n/t

[seriousstan]

14. A friend of mine is working on this for the Air Force. Uber-stealth.

It will absorb radar.

[Occulus]

33. 'Absorb' smacks of some sort of material

Some coating or skin, which holds the absorption property in situ, or maybe when a charge is applied.

I could be way off, but materials engineers are learning how to do some fascinating things.

[On the Road]

24. Reminds Me of:

We rode a bubble through the sun
We all knew it could be done
There were men with fiery wings
And a million burning things...



http://www.airplane.freeserve.co.uk/lyrics/dragon.htm#allflyaway