> advances in shielding have led to nanotechnolgy research where
> the density of the material at the nano level may provide a
> lower profile of material.
>
> We could use nanotechnology to create a solid - say an
> aerogel - which intercepts and then reflects and
> refracts the cosmic ray,
particles, and electrons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
> something that NASA uses to intercept cosmic rays right now.
> (Google: wiki nanogel or wiki stardust nasa)
That is untrue. NASA collects dust samples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_%28spacecraft%
29#Aerogel_sample_collectors
Cosmic radiation is not composed of dust.
The reason that NASA uses aerogel to catch dust is not that aerogel
makes a particularly good shield (and it happens to *not* make a
particularly good shield). The reason is that aerogel can catch
dust without damaging it. This is explained at the Stardust link
above.
> For those naturally inclinded, but planning a trip
> beyond the van Allen belt, go green and take along
> your own magnetic field generator for protection...
This is a bad idea for reasons that were explained in a link I
posted in my previous message. Here is that link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Shielding
"Electromagnetic shielding has a number of problems: (1) the fields
act in opposite directions on positively and negatively charged
particles, so shielding that excludes positively charged galactic
cosmic rays will tend to attract negative ions; (2) a very large
power supply would be required in order to run the electrostatic and
magnetostatic generators, and superconducting materials might have to
be used for magnetic coils; (3) the possible field patterns might
tend to dump charged particles into one area of the spacecraft."
> Finally, no one technology appears to be able to
> handle all the cosmic radiation possibilities.
Mass and hydrogen-richness do handle all the cosmic radiation
possibilities.
By the way, what sorts of radiation do foam and aerogel shield
the best?
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Health_threat_ from_cosmic_ rays#Shielding
>
> "Electromagnetic shielding has a number of problems: (1) the fields
> act in opposite directions on positively and negatively charged
> particles, so shielding that excludes positively charged galactic
> cosmic rays will tend to attract negative ions; (2) a very large
> power supply would be required in order to run the electrostatic and
> magnetostatic generators, and superconducting materials might have to
> be used for magnetic coils; (3) the possible field patterns might
> tend to dump charged particles into one area of the spacecraft."
Back in the early days of space habitat research, they did look at a combination of magnetic and electric fields for radiation shielding before deciding that the idea was too cumbersome and not as reliable as mass shielding. An electric field by itself results in problem (1). A magnetic field by itself results in problem (3). So what they had advocated was charging the outer hull of the space habitat with a strong positive charge. This would repel the large, positively-charged nuclei (the most damaging kind of radiation). Left by itself, though, this would attract electrons, which would strike the hull and product X-rays. A magnetic field was then used to funnel the attracted electrons. This was smarter than doing it the other way around since the electrons were of much lower mass than even a single proton, and thus more easily deflected by a lower-power magnetic field. But as I said, in the end they decided that a passive mass shield was a moreelegant solution(and safer). Regards,
Mike Combs