Talk:Health threat from cosmic rays: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:44, 21 December 2014

Spaceflight Redirect‑class

	Spaceflight portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Medicine Redirect‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Health threat from cosmic rays appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that no viable solution has yet been found to counteract radiation from space, which is a serious threat to astronauts on any future mission to Mars?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/November.

Wikipedia

Mis-named?? Merge candidate??

I think the title of this article is wrong. Space does not give off radiation ... stars do. A better title would be "Solar radiation" ... note there already is an article with this title. Should your title be "Protecting astronauts from radiation"? Victuallers (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space radiation (radiation that permeates space, not implying that it is generated by space) seems to be a standard way to refer to cosmic rays when evaluating their impact on human missions. It is referred as such in the second reference and the names of the Space Radiation Shielding Program and of the Space Radiation Laboratory confirm it. Eubulide (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Victuallers, at the very least, this article is mis-named. "Space radiation" is defined in the first sentence as cosmic rays and we already have an article about that. It would seem best to add this material to that article rather than starting a separate one under the vague and possibly title of "Space radiation". Madman (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Since:

The term "space radiation" is defined as cosmic rays in the lead sentence, and
The term "space radiation" is rather vague and potentially misleading,

I suggest that non-duplicate information here be merged into that article. Madman (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked in my answer to Victuallers, the term space radiation is used by NASA itself in the name of its projects to find a solution to the potential health risks of interplanetary travel. It is indeed a vague expression, but we should blame the scientists for it! In my opinion the topic deserves a separate article. Maybe the best solution is simply to rename it to something like health threat from cosmic rays. Would you agree with that? Eubulide (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Anyone else?? Madman (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented at DYK, "space radiation" is a real term. The move to "health threat from cosmic rays" sounds reasonable, as long as space radiation redirects to the moved name. The redirect will automatically happen when it is moved. This article should be moved fairly soon, so it doesn't interfere with featuring the article in the DYK section on the main page. Royalbroil 01:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eubulide (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

health threat from cosmic rays is more of a misnomer than "health threat from space radiation." Cosmic Rays are specific type of particle, separate from Solar Energetic Particles, both of which present a threat during interplanetary travel. My suggestion would be "space radiation environment" or "non-terrestrial radiation sources". Change it back or use one of the previous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.184.44 (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add a 3rd category of space radiation is the Van Allen Belts. Van Allen Belts are distinct from Cosmic Rays. 75.84.184.44 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes

The lede should link directly to galactic cosmic rays, not cosmic rays. The assertion about these being, "generated by the Sun and other stars" should be removed. The source of GCR could either be left for discussion in that article, or could be described as, "believed to be accelerated at shocks produced by supernova explosions" per this highly reliable source. (sdsds - talk) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Re-title suggestion; (2) Is the Solar Wind a health threat too?

First off, I think this article as is should be re-titled something like, "Health Threats to Space Travel from Galactic Cosmic Rays."

But the main point of this posting is asking whether the Solar wind itself also poses a health threat once you get above a certain distance (e.g., low earth orbit), from the earth. (Note, I'm not talking only about coronal mass ejections or other events.) If so, the health threat from the solar wind to, presumably, interplanetary travel (or even habitation, such as in a lunar outpost for possible colonization of the moon). These are not hypothetical musings, but things that are being debated and/or worked on right now: see Vision for Space Exploration; Exploration Systems Architecture Study; lunar outpost (NASA); Project Constellation#Ongoing debates; and Manned mission to Mars#21st Century proposals

If the solar wind poses an independent health threat to astronauts, then this article should be re-titled something like, "Health Threats to Space Travel from Radiation" and then broken down into subcategories: perhaps (1) Solar Threats (SW, solar flares, coronal mass ejections), and (2) Galactic Cosmic Rays. Or, the way I'd prefer it, use three categories: (1) "Interplanetary Travel" (SW, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and GCRs) (this would apply to planetary missions, moon colonies, as well as various space habitats), (2) "Interstellar Travel" (GCRs), and (3) "Intergalactic Travel" (GCRs? other?).

I found Proton#Exposure, Solar proton event, and Solar Energetic Particles which seem to support my belief that the radiological threat from the Sun should be addressed.

Once these suggestions have been implemented (by someone w/more knowledge and time than myself), info and links (new or re-titled) should be added to this article from: Space and survival; Colonization of the Moon#Disadvantages; Solar wind; Generation ship; Human adaptation to space#Effects of radiation, Interstellar travel, Space medicine#Radiation effects, Space exploration, Space habitat#Protection from hostile external environment, Space colonization#Radiation protection, Interstellar travel, Intergalactic travel, Interplanetary spaceflight#Radiation.

This article then should even be linked to: Extraterrestrial life, Astrobiology#Criticisms, and UFOs since the GCV issue relates to those subjects.

Phantom in ca (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Wind is different from Solar Energetic Particles. Peak fluxes of solar wind are around 1 keV. To be dangerous particles need to be at relativistic energies(minimum 511 keV). SEPs on the other hand are a very serious risk. They can produce very high fluxes of protons with energies of 100s of MeV. An SEP would kill a crew immediately, but they don't occur very often. I tried to add some information making some of these distinctions, as it seems to me like the article blurs the different categories of particle. I'm not sure an interstellar or intergalactic category is necessary. We don't really know anything more than we do about interplanetary. GCRs will be stronger outside the solar system because we won't have protection from the heliopause, but as far as I know, that is about it.75.84.184.44 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the exclusive focus on galactic cosmic rays?

Why is this article almost exclusively focused on galactic cosmic rays? My understanding was that about half of the integrated radiation dose over time was from particles originating from the sun, and these would certainly be the dominant source during magnetic reconnection events (large flares and similar). The term "cosmic ray" does not distinguish between solar and extra-solar origin (it refers to high-energy radiation from space in general). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's a manpower issue,it should be included. Spacerad (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole descriptor thing seems a bit muddled. Clearly, the broader topic is radiation impinging on various objects and biological life forms in space. So one might expect a somewhat broader title, and article scope, along the lines of space radiation or some such. In fact, Space radiation does redirect here.

But the current title (as of 24 Jan 2011: "Health threat from cosmic rays") is way too narrow a scope. Why the focus only on "health effects"? And why limit the radiation exclusively to "cosmic rays"? Beyond that, why the anthropocentric emphasis on the "health threat" to humans? The whole thing needs a refocus, retitling, and a rewrite. N2e (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think workmanship is objectively a much higher risk than rare extra-solar cosmic rays. But this is not just a science news article. Its inherently politics and a fund raiser too. Deep space cosmic rays are a sexier radiation source to study (far away places and deeper mysteries of whole universe vs solar backyard accessible to even serious amateurs). Health is the motivation for political support from common citizens. Most space research lives by piggybacking on mention in other space topics to which it may have only limited practical connection. Most importantly funding for manned space missions is extremely sensitive to politics of catastrophe -- no matter how unforeseeable or unlikely. Objectively, redundant crews could accept 50% casualties and incapacitation with the mission still being cost effective and scientific success. Look at European exploration of the round earth. But viewers identify unusually closely with crew.

You are correct that there is a much higher flux of local solar system radiation, thus a vastly greater chance of interaction. Enough higher that crew will certainty die without shielding. Extra-solar very high energy Cosmic ray flux is more a question of "what if the crew unlucky in the few rare interactions?" That said, if an interaction does occur, higher energy cosmic rays have MUCH higher potential for HIGH consequence single events. Simply a lot more energy delivered in one shot and harder to shield against all primary and secondary effects. Actually its the shotgun shower of secondary and subsequent cascading radiation interactions that give single cosmic rays so much theoretical power to do damage over wide areas. I would say cosmic rays might be most important with how they complicate choices for shielding against the more common solar system radiation. How you shield can make that cosmic ray cascading less or worse - and effect the energies of cascade radiation which must also be shielded against.

Plus scientists really don't have a good grasp on which radiation might turn out to be critical due to the complexity of space mission equipment and human bodies: is it the steady high "surf" of erosion by local solar radiation? Or is it a single/few 1 in a million events from cosmic rays? ...which might just happen to be something other than 1 in a million odds because of something about the mission (e.g. shielding choices, directions of orbital transfer path, internal arrangements of equipment and people, all those single points of failure, vulnerabilities in the interaction of operation cycles of various systems). 70.114.133.167 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

change title or include stratospheric aircraft flights

Could discuss radiation exposure (eg mSv/day) in jet aircraft crew, ISS missions, moon flights and living at high altitude eg Denver or higher? Are solar flares significant in any but interplanetary flight ? Rod57 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In mitigiation shielding section I wondered why my addition was removed? "Another lower payload weight possibility might be personal shielding. eg. a thick lead or alloy chainmail could be worn during high radiation events. Being a weightless environment it would not be so heavy that it would cause discomfort." This concept is already used to protect equipment.

Normally the sun would be a major contributor of radiation due to the number of particles and proximity. However under certain special conditions radiation from the Galaxy as a whole can theoretically be higher. eg. supernova radiation or radiation from the central black hole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.131.6 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the level radiation at the level of the ISS and how much radiation protection does the ISS have? This might give a clue as to how much proection is required for say a one way flight to mars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.131.6 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For information

"[boron nitrade] BN materials are of particular theoretical value as composite structural materials in future manned interplanetary spacecraft, where absorption-shielding from cosmic ray spallation neutrons is expected to be a particular asset in light construction materials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_nitride#Boron_nitride_nanotubes

Star A Star (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates from Curiosity rover

The original scientific paper should be available shortly. Mars rover confirms dangers of space radiation. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNN article on the problems & possible solutions to cosmic rays and space travel

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/world/europe/star-trek-shield/index.html

Just posting this here in case someone (else) wants to add this info.

Phantom in ca (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another article for someone to add, this re. the risks of cosmic rays when a solar cycle is particular weak, like the current one thru the 2020s.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26430-sleepy-sun-could-make-mars-trips-deadly.html

Phantom in ca (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:43, 21 December 2014 edit 70.114.133.167 (talk) →Why the exclusive focus on galactic cosmic rays? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:44, 21 December 2014 edit undo 70.114.133.167 (talk) →Why the exclusive focus on galactic cosmic rays? Next edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:


	:I think workmanship is objectively a much higher risk than rare extra-solar cosmic rays. But this is not just a science news article. Its inherently politics and a fund raiser too. Deep space cosmic rays are a sexier radiation source to study (far away places and deeper mysteries of whole universe vs solar backyard accessible to even amateurs). Health is the motivation for political support from common citizens. Most space research lives by piggybacking on mention in other space topics to which it may have only limited practical connection. Most importantly funding for manned space missions is extremely sensitive to politics of catastrophe -- no matter how unforeseeable or unlikely. Objectively, redundant crews could accept 50% casualties and incapacitation with the mission still being cost effective and scientific success. Look at European exploration of the round earth. But viewers identify unusually closely with crew.		:I think workmanship is objectively a much higher risk than rare extra-solar cosmic rays. But this is not just a science news article. Its inherently politics and a fund raiser too. Deep space cosmic rays are a sexier radiation source to study (far away places and deeper mysteries of whole universe vs solar backyard accessible to even serious amateurs). Health is the motivation for political support from common citizens. Most space research lives by piggybacking on mention in other space topics to which it may have only limited practical connection. Most importantly funding for manned space missions is extremely sensitive to politics of catastrophe -- no matter how unforeseeable or unlikely. Objectively, redundant crews could accept 50% casualties and incapacitation with the mission still being cost effective and scientific success. Look at European exploration of the round earth. But viewers identify unusually closely with crew.

	:You are correct that there is a much higher flux of local solar system radiation, thus a vastly greater chance of interaction. Enough higher that crew will certainty die without shielding. Extra-solar very high energy Cosmic ray flux is more a question of "what if the crew unlucky in the few rare interactions?" That said, if an interaction does occur, higher energy cosmic rays have MUCH higher potential for HIGH consequence single events. Simply a lot more energy delivered in one shot and harder to shield against all primary and secondary effects. Actually its the shotgun shower of secondary and subsequent cascading radiation interactions that give single cosmic rays so much theoretical power to do damage over wide areas. I would say cosmic rays might be most important with how they complicate choices for shielding against the more common solar system radiation. How you shield can make that cosmic ray cascading less or worse - and effect the energies of cascade radiation which must also be shielded against.		:You are correct that there is a much higher flux of local solar system radiation, thus a vastly greater chance of interaction. Enough higher that crew will certainty die without shielding. Extra-solar very high energy Cosmic ray flux is more a question of "what if the crew unlucky in the few rare interactions?" That said, if an interaction does occur, higher energy cosmic rays have MUCH higher potential for HIGH consequence single events. Simply a lot more energy delivered in one shot and harder to shield against all primary and secondary effects. Actually its the shotgun shower of secondary and subsequent cascading radiation interactions that give single cosmic rays so much theoretical power to do damage over wide areas. I would say cosmic rays might be most important with how they complicate choices for shielding against the more common solar system radiation. How you shield can make that cosmic ray cascading less or worse - and effect the energies of cascade radiation which must also be shielded against.